HAMMID HASSEN, Respondent, v. SIDE SALEM, SOLOMON HODGE, et al., Appellants.
(185 N. W. 969.)
Mortgages—plaintiff held to have equitable interest, and to be entitled to conveyance from vendor and from payment of amount due.
1. In an action to determine adverse claims and to recover the value of the use and occupation of certain premises wherein the plaintiff claims that he had an equitable interest in, and was entitled to conveyance of, the premises in suit by the defendant Hodge, by virtue of a certain arrangement and contract; that he has paid the full amount due the defendant, and has for some time been entitled to a conveyance of the premises, it is held:
That the plaintiff has an equitable interest in the premises and is entitled to conveyance by the defendant Hodge upon the payment of the amount due Hodge.
Mortgages—finding that purchaser had made full payment held contrary to evidence.
2. That findings of the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff has paid Hodge the full amount due him and that no further sum is due to Hodge are not supported by, but are contrary to the weight of, the evidence.
Appeal and error—case held subject to remanding for determination of amount due defendant from plaintiff.
3. For reasons stated in the opinion the case is remanded for a determination of the amount due to the defendant, Hodge, from the plaintiff.
Opinion filed Dec. 1st, 1921. Rehearing denied Dec. 16, 1921.
From a judgment of the district Court of Mountrail County, Leighton. J., defendant, Solomon Hodge, appeals.
Remanded for retrial.
F. F. Wyckoff and F. W. Medberry, for appellants.
“The general rule is that the certificate of acknowledgement will be held as valid against the unsupported evidence of the person certified to have executed it.” McCardia v. Billings, 10 N. D. 379; Patnode v. Deschenes, 15 N. D. 100; Citing 1 Cyc. 623; 2 Jones on Conveyancing, § 1196; McCardia v. Billings, supra; Young v. Engdahl, 18 N. D. 166, at p. 175. Even though the testimony of the grantor is slightly corroborated it
