Scott v. District Court of the Fifth Judicial District
North Dakota Supreme Court
Certiorari by W. A. Scott and H. O. Wheeler to the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for the county of Barnes and others to review an injunction. The fact that an action to foreclose a mortgage by action is barred by the statute of limitations, in no way affects foreclosure by advertisement.
Read the full summary
Certiorari by W. A. Scott and H. O. Wheeler to the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for the county of Barnes and others to review an injunction. The fact that an action to foreclose a mortgage by action is barred by the statute of limitations, in no way affects foreclosure by advertisement. Hayes v. Frey et al., 11 N. W. 695; Stevens v. Osgood et ah, 100 N. W. 161; Gulcher v. Brisben, 20 Minn. 453; Menz v. Hintil, 44 S. C. 385; Cone v. Hyatt, 44 S. E. 678. The act of the legislature, providing an ex parte injunctional order to restrain the foreclosure of a mortgage, is…
1DissentYoung, J.
(dissenting in part.) The question presented to this court for decision in this case is whether the ex parte order of the district court, which enjoined the plaintiffs from foreclosing the mortgage in question by advertisement under the power of sale contained therein, should be affirmed or reversed. I agree with my associates that it must be reversed, and for the reason stated, namely, upon the ground that the restraining order was issued upon the application of a person who had no right under the statute (section 5845) to make the application. I do not agree with the further views expressed…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Goldfrank, Frank & Co. v. YoungTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- President of Bank of the Metropolis v. GuttschlickSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Hayes v. FreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Menzel v. Hinton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Golcher v. BrisbinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.