Ardoino v. Hulse

Defendant, the mortgagor, appeals from an order of seizure and sale of the property mortgaged. 1-Ie alleges that the evidence before the judge who issued the order was insufficient to authorize the fiat.

Appellant’s first contention is that the mortgage notes are not definitely described in the petition, and that there is a discrepancy between the notes as described and the act of mortgage.

The petition is inartistically drawn, but, considered as a whole, it shows that the two notes which were filed with it are each for the sum of $1,500, dated April 6, 1921, and payable, respectively, January…