Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/293

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
MORRIS v. M’KNIGHT.
269

Dean might have as mortgagees by redeeming from the foreclosure sale to Elizabeth McKnight; that in order to pass title to real estate by foreclosure by advertisement, the record: must show a chain of title from the mortgagor to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and that the record in this case showed no such chain, hence the foreclosue was invalid; but that the same constituted a cloud on plaintiff's title, and should be vacated and canceled.

Appellants’ cousel contend in this court that the trial court, in canceling the foreclosure proceedings under the circumstances, disregarded the well-established rule in equity, and which is also a statutory rule in this state, (Civil Code, §§ 2011, 2012,) to the effect that a court of equity will not entertain an action to cancel an instrument invalid on its face, or upon the face of another instrument necessary to the use of the former in evidence, for the reason that an instrument which thus carries its own infirmity on its face cannot constitute a cloud. The argument is this: Title under the forclosure can only be asserted by tracing back through the assignments of the mortgage. Under the ruling such assignments are held to be insufficient in law to sustain the foreclosure by Elizabeth McKnight. Hence, every effort to assert the title exhibits its invalidy. We see no escape from this position, and, while the rule itself has been severely criticised, (see 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. p. 437,) yet, as it has legislative sanction in this state, we cannot regard the criticism. For the reason above stated a reversal will be necessary, but in order to definitely determine the rights of the parties respectively, we must notice the other points in the case.

It is contended that the court erred in holding that the record must show a legal chain of title from the mortgagor to the foreclosure purchaser. In the broad sense of the words, perhaps, the position of counsel is correct, but, in the sense in which the court used the language, we deem the rule most salutary, and it is not without support in the authorities. Our statute (§ 5412, Comp. Laws, subd. 3) provides, as a condition precedent to foreclosure by advertisement, “that the mortgage containing such such power of sale has been duly recorded, and, if it shall have been assigned, that all the assignments thereof have been