Skip to main content
· 7/11/1900

Karcher v. Gans

Citations

  • 13 S.D. 383
  • 83 N.W. 431
  • 1900 S.D. LEXIS 159

Syllabus

<p>1. The sale of a homestead under a power of sale contained in a mortgage is not a forced sale, within the meaning of Const. Art. 21, § 4 exempting homesteads from forced sales.</p> <p>2. Under Comp. Laws, § 2451, providing that “an incumbrance by the owner of a homestead shall bo of no validity unless the husband and wife * * * concur in and sign the same joint instrument, ” it is immaterial whether the wife acknowledges the execution of the instrument.</p> <p>3. Where defendant, with her husband, executed a mortgage on their homestead to secure a loan from plaintiff, the fact that defendant for four years gave no intimation that she had not properly acknowledged its execution as certified by the notary public estopped her from impeaching its validity on the ground that her acknowledgment was defective.</p> <p>4. Wht re defendant and her husband executed a mortgage on then’ homestead, and defendant, permitted her husband to take it and use it according-to bis judgment, sbe cannot be beard to claim that it was never delivered by her, and so never became a binding instrument.</p> <p>5. Since an entry into possession of mortgaged property prior to foreclosure is not necessary, the use of the word “entry” in the mortgage in suit was without meaning; and an obj-'clb n to the auctioneer’s affidavit, sheriff’s certificate of sale, and sheriff’s deed, at a sale op foreclosure, on the ground that no entry into possession had been shown, was not well taken.</p> <p>6. Since the duty of the sheriff to indorse the amount of the bid on the mortgage note, where he conducts a sale on foreclosure, is an official duty, over which the purchaser has no control, his failure to do so does not affect the validity of the sale, nor justify the exclusion of his certificate of purchase and deed given at such sale from evidence.</p> <p>7. Since the authority given by plaintiff to his agent to foreclose a mortgage on defendant’s property did not give the agent authority to extend the period

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that there are situations in which a rule can “take effect immediately”
  • describing public inspection as “the critical date” that marks the validity of a rule as to the general public
  • rejecting the government’s “claimed powers to enforce unpublished rules and to withdraw those rules without abiding the APA’s procedural require- ments”
  • finding sufficient organizational plaintiff’s diversion of resources from existing programs to counteract ongoing challenged conduct
  • “[O]nce an agency makes a rule . . . the APA requires the agency to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before repealing it.”
  • “[B]oth the Federal Register Act and FOIA contemplate prepublication enforcement against parties with actual notice [of agency rules].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Corson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.