Froelich v. Swafford
South Dakota Supreme Court
On rehearing. (8) Under point eight of the opinion-, Respondent cited: Hogaboom v. Flower, 72 Pac. 547; Beebe v. Dexter, 14 Pac. 150; Florence L. & T. 'Co. v. Parker, 33 Neb. 775, 29 Am. St. Rep. 506; Boro v. Hidell, 122 Tenn. 80, 120 S. W. 961, 135 .Am. St. Rep. 857.
1DissentSmith, J.
(dissenting.) This case is before us on petition for rehearing, and believing as I do that the conclusion reached by the last majority decision was erroneous, I take this opportunity to state the reason for my dissent, which was noted when the majority opinion was handed down. In my judgment, the fundamental error in that decision is in the assumption that an action by a junior mortgage lienholder to redeem from a prior mortgage lien, affects, or that the decree in such action, acts “diretly upon, property vdtMn th&s state.” I base my dissent upon the proposition that an action by -the junior…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Freeman v. AldersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Buck v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Power v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Winfree v. . BagleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Battishill v. HumphreysMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.