Sargent v. Cooley
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Grand Forks comity. Fisk, J. Action by F. S. Sargent, as receiver of'the Security Trust Company, against John E. Cooley and Minnie E. Clifford. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Proof to break down a mortgage must be “clear, satisfactory and specific, and of such a character as to leave in the mind of the Chancellor no hestitation or substantial doubt.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Grand Forks comity. Fisk, J. Action by F. S. Sargent, as receiver of'the Security Trust Company, against John E. Cooley and Minnie E. Clifford. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Proof to break down a mortgage must be “clear, satisfactory and specific, and of such a character as to leave in the mind of the Chancellor no hestitation or substantial doubt.” McGnin v. Lee, 10 N. D. 160, 86 N. W, 717. Under the statute of this state, “A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or his agent, as such, is necessarily…
1Opinion
on rehearing.
(April 28, 1903.)
Young, C. J.
A petition for rehearing was granted in this: case, and the same was fully argued at the first session of the March term. Counsel for defendant, in his petition for rehearing, in refering to the admissibility of parol evidence offered at the trial to defeat the mortgage, very properly concedes that “there is no question', about the effect of the provisions of our Code (section 3517, Rev. Codes 1.899), if it is to be held that the mortgage was delivered to-the Security Trust Company for its use with any -conditions attached.” His contention is that the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Worrall v. . MunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Gilbert v. North American Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Blewitt v. . BoorumNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Bookstaver v. . JayneNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.