Skip to main content
· 1/10/1900

Striegel v. Harding

Citations

  • 12 S.D. 342
  • 81 N.W. 635
  • 1900 S.D. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>1. The complaint and subsequent proceedings in suit to foreclose a mortgage, which described the premises as “lot 22, in block 5, according to the map of the city of D., compiled by R.. said premises being known as the‘H. & H. lot,’ situated on M. street,” having described' the premises as “lot 21, in block 5, according to the map of the city oí D., prepared by S., the same being designated as lot 21, in block 17, on the map of the city of D..prepared by R., being on M. street, and known as the H. & H. lot,”’ and there having been no lot 21 in block 5 of the S. map, or in block 17 of the R. map, so that no one could have been misled by the mistake, the description as “lot 21” will be treated as surplussage, and title acquired under the foreclosure proceedings will be quieted against a defendant in such proceedings who appeared and answered therein.</p> <p>2. The allegations of a complaint cannot be shown to be untrue on appeal from order sustaining demurrer thereto.</p>

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.