Deindorfer v. Bachmor

Citations

• 12 S.D. 285
• 81 N.W. 297
• 1899 S.D. LEXIS 119

Syllabus

<p>1. An assignment of error that a referee erred in finding in favor of respondent is too vague and indefinite to be considered on appeal.</p> <p>2. A finding that a mortgage was signed by certain parties, “and was duly acknowledged,” sufficiently finds that it was acknowledged by all, and that all joined in its execution.</p> <p>3. On an issue before a referee as to whether a wife joined with her husband in the execution of a mortgage, which she denied, the notary before whom it was acknowledged swore that she both sig'ned and acknowledged it in his presence, and his evidence as to her signature was corroborated by the testimony of experts who had compared her signature with her handwriting. Hold to justify a finding that she both signed and acknowledged it.</p> <p>4. The finding of a referee, on conflicting evidence, that a note had not been paid, will not be disturbed on appeal, if the court is unable to say that it is not fully justified by the evidence.</p> <p>5. An application for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence was based on the affidavit of a witness for the defeated parties, who had attended the trial before a referee six months before he made his report on which the judgment was rendered. The affiant swore to an important admission against the interest of the successful party, not testified to at tho trial, which she denied by a counter affidavit. Meld, that the court did not err in refusing a new trial.</p> <p>6. A contention by mortgagees that a mortgage was invalid because it was executed on land settled on by the mortgagors as a homestead under the laws of the United States, prior to final proof under such law, could not be made for the first time on appeal.</p>