Lankford v. Peterson
Lankford v. Peterson
Opinion of the Court
On September 16, 1915, during the September term of the court, a rule nisi to foreclose a mortgage on realty Was issued and duly served upon the mortgagor. At the February term, 1916, a plea was filed. Subsequently during the same term the case was called for trial, and the defendant objected to the case being tried at that term, and urged that it be continued, on the grounds, that the February term, 1916, was the appearance term of the case, and it could not be tried at that term, a plea having, been filed in the case; and that no proper verdict could be rendered at that term and the case should not be tried before a subsequent term. The court overruled the objection and ordered that the trial proceed; and this ruling is assigned as error.
The court properly ruled the case to trial. Section 3276 of the Civil Code of 1910 provides that mortgages on real estate may be foreclosed as follows: “Any person applying and'entitled to foreclose such mortgage shall, by himself or his attorney, petition to the superior court of-the county wherein the mortgaged property may be, which petition shall contain a’statement of the case, the amount of the petitioner’s demand, and a description of the property mortgaged; whereupon the court shall grant a rule directing the principal, interest, and costs to be paid into court on or before the first day of the next term immediately succeeding the one at which such rule is granted; which rule shall be published once a month for four months, or served on the mortgagor, or his special agent or attorney, at least three months previous to the time at which the money is directed to be paid into court, as aforesaid.” The rule nisi served upon the mortgagor in this case followed’ the
It will thus be seen that where a mortgage on realty is foreclosed, the defendant has three months’ notice of the plaintiff’s demand, and should ordinarily be ready for trial on the call of the case after such notice. If the plaintiff is ready, there is no need for further delay. Of course, on a proper showing made, by either party, for a continuance, it should be granted; but the defendant has not, as a matter of law, the right to another term.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.