Nordhagen v. Enderlin Inv. Co.

• Citation: 129 N.W. 1024,21 N.D. 25
• Decision Date: 24 January 1911
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

129 N.W. 1024

21 N.D. 25

RANDE NORDHAGEN v. ENDERLIN INVESTMENT COMPANY and John J. Lee, Sheriff of Ward County

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 24, 1911

Appeal from District Court, Ward county; Goss, J.

Action to quiet title.

Reversed.

Judgment reversed, and judgment enter quieting title to land described in the appellant.

Pierce Tenneson & Cupler, for appellant.

No appearance or brief for respondent.

SPALDING J. W. C. CRAWFORD, judge of the tenth judicial district, sat in the place of GOSS, J., disqualified.

OPINION

SPALDING, J.

This appeal was taken by the defendant, the Enderlin Investment Company, from a judgment of the district court of Ward county, adjudging that the plaintiff, Rande Nordhagen, was the owner in fee simple and entitled to the possession of the southwest quarter of section 35, in township 155, north of range 81, west, and quieting title in her, and canceling a deed given by Gilbert Nordhagen to Carl Nordhagen, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Ward county, North Dakota, in Book 6 of Deeds at page 457, on the 27th day of April, 1905, and one given from Carl Nordhagen to Rande Nordhagen, and recorded in Book 9 of Deeds, in the same county, page 44. The facts relating to this proceeding are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of this court found in Enderlin Invest. Co. v. Nordhagen, 18 N.D. 517, 123 N.W. 390. The case cited was an action brought by the Enderlin Investment Company, under the forcible entry and detainer statute, on the ground that the defendants had wrongfully held over after the title had ripened in the Enderlin Investment Company through a sheriff's deed issued on an execution sale. While that action was pending, Rande Nordhagen brought this action to quiet title to the same land. That action was tried by the court without a jury, and it was stipulated that the evidence offered in the forcible entry and detainer action should be considered as having been offered and introduced in this action, and that the same findings and conclusions should be made by the district court in this action that should be made in such other action. The defendant in the case at bar pleaded a counterclaim based upon the title claimed through the sheriff's deed. No question was raised as to the regularity of the proceedings leading up to and including the execution and delivery of the sheriff's deed. The forcible entry and detainer action...