Hassen v. Salem
North Dakota Supreme Court
Erofrt a judgment of the district Court of Mountrail County, Leighton. J., defendant, Solomon Hodge, appeals. “The general rule is that the certificate of acknowledgement will be held as valid against the unsupported evidence of the person certified to have executed it.”
Read the full summary
Erofrt a judgment of the district Court of Mountrail County, Leighton. J., defendant, Solomon Hodge, appeals. “The general rule is that the certificate of acknowledgement will be held as valid against the unsupported evidence of the person certified to have executed it.” McCardia v. Billings, io N. D. 379; Patnode v. Deschenes, 15 N. D. 100; Citing 1 Cyc. 623; 2 Jones on Conveyancing, § IT96; McCardia v. Billings, supra; Young v. Engdahl, 18 N. D. 166, at P- 175- Even though the testimony of the grantor is slightly corroborated it is usually held insufficient to overcome the certificate. N.…
1Opinion of the CourtChristianson, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to determine adverse claims to 160 acres of land situated in Mountrail county, in this state, and to recover from the defendants the value of the üse and occupation of said premises during the years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919. Plaintiff acquired title to said tract of land under the laws of the United States of America relating to homesteads. Patent therefor was issued to the plaintiff by the United States government on May 23, 1906. Subsequently the plaintiff gave several mortgages on the land. One of the mortgages was foreclosed, and certificate of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- King v. TallmadgeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
3Cited by6 opinions
- Coykendall v. KelloggNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- McMillen v. ChamberlandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
- Passenger v. CoanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
- Smith v. FladelandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Bartholomay v. BartholomayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.