Hunt v. Dohrs
WM. G. HUNT v. H. C. DOHRS and MARY ANN DOHRS (his wife)
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Richard W. Rhodes (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Rhodes
Rhodes, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court:
The judgment for the principal of the promissory note is erroneous—because the complaint shows, that when the action was commenced, the note had not become due. The plaintiff might have taken a judgment for a sale of so much of the mortgaged premises, as might be necessary to satisfy the interest then due; but the order for the sale of all the premises was erroneous. The personal judgment against the defendant was erroneous. (See Practice Act, Sec. 246.)
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded,
Cited by
- Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. Harrold Sac. No. 613. · 1900-02-21
- Simpson v. Castle No. 5751 · 1878-07-01