Hewitt v. Dredge
HARRY R. HEWITT v. ELIZABETH BOSTON DREDGE AND ANOTHER
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bunn, J.
The complaint alleged that defendants on October 25, 1914, at Minneapolis, Minnesota, executed and delivered to plaintiff their promissory notes, one for $500 due in one year, one for the same amount due in two years, and one for $2,000 due in three years. It pleaded nonpayment of the principal of the first note and of the first semiannual interest coupons on all the notes, and asked judgment accordingly. Defendants answered this complaint, admitting the making and delivery of the notes, and setting up as a defense that the notes were secured by. a mortgage upon land *172 in the province of Manitoba, Dominion of Canada, and the passage by the legislative assembly of the province in April, 1915, of a so-called “Moratorium” Act. The act is set out in full, and provides in substance that no proceedings to foreclose a mortgage shall be taken until after one year from a default, and that no action to enforce a convenant or agreement to pay money contained in any mortgage or agreement to purchase land shall be brought until after one year from default.
Upon these pleadings, and an affidavit to which copies of the notes and coupons were attached, plaintiff moved to strike out the anwer as sham and frivolous. The motion was granted, and defendant appealed from the order.
The trial court was clearly right. 'The notes and coupons were executed in Minnesota and payable there, and both the makers and the payee were residents of Minnesota. It is too plain for argument that the laws of this state control, and that no act of the legislature of the Canadian provincd where the mortgaged land is situated can affect the right to recover in this state on the notes. There is no doubt of the right to enforce payment of the notes independently of the mortgage.
It may be noted further that the act pleaded does not purport to postpone the right to sue on the notes, but affects only the right to foreclose the mortgage, or sue on the covenant therein.
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.