Selway v. Daut
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Custer County; Stanley E. Felt, Judge. Action by E. E. Selway against John Daut and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Only upon a full compliance with the requirements of the law under which the entry is made does the entryman acquire a vested interest in the lands covered by the entry that can be sold, demised, sold under execution and, in the absence of statutory provisions, mortgaged.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Custer County; Stanley E. Felt, Judge. Action by E. E. Selway against John Daut and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Only upon a full compliance with the requirements of the law under which the entry is made does the entryman acquire a vested interest in the lands covered by the entry that can be sold, demised, sold under execution and, in the absence of statutory provisions, mortgaged. (Newkirk v. Marshall, 35 Kan. 77, 10 Pae. 571-575; Christ v. Cosby, 11 Okl. 635, 69 Pac. 885; McCwne v. Essig, 122 Fed. 588, 59 C. C. A. 429; Jarvis v. Hoffman,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Galen
This is an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage. The complaint is in usual form, save that a reformation of the description of the lands is sought. The execution of the note and mortgage is admitted by the defendants John and Lillian Daut, but they deny that there is anything due thereon. It appears that at the time of the execution of the note and mortgage, November 13, 1909, the lands mortgaged comprised desert land entries made by the Dauts under Act of Congress. (Act of March 3, 1877, 19 Stat. 377, amended Act of March 3, 1891; 8 Fed. Stats. Ann., p. 692 (U. S. Comp. Stats., secs.…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Bridge v. KedonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Fuller & Co. v. HuntSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Orr v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- United States v. HammersSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Spiess v. NeubergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bashore v. AdolfIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Grasswick v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1928
- Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance v. BrainardMontana Supreme Court · 1928
- First State Bank v. ZossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Lohman State Bank v. GrimMontana Supreme Court · 1924