Hocksprung v. Young
North Dakota Supreme Court
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Renville County, Honorable K. E. Leighton J. As to the first cause of action, there being no objection to the sufficiency of the complaint on any grounds, the complaint states facts constituting a cause of action, and should be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, even though objection to the introduction of evidence had been made.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Renville County, Honorable K. E. Leighton J. As to the first cause of action, there being no objection to the sufficiency of the complaint on any grounds, the complaint states facts constituting a cause of action, and should be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, even though objection to the introduction of evidence had been made. Johnson v. Burnside, 3 S. D. 230, 52 N. W. 1057; Schweinber v. Great Western Elevator Co. 9 N. D. 113, 81 N. W. 35; Chilson v. Bank of Eairmount, 9 N. D. 96, 81 N. W. 33; James River Nat. Bank…
1Opinion of the Court
Spalding, Ch. J.
The complaint in this action contains two counts. The first is in the usual form for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. No demurrer was interposed or motion made calling attention to any defect therein, and the allegations of the answer need not be considered further than that, as applicable to the point presented on this appeal, they are a general denial.
On the offer of evidence on the part of the plaintiff, no objection was made to the introduction of evidence in support of the first count, but after the trial the court made a finding, among others, that no evidence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Davidson v. HougeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920