Page images


East, 459.

which constitutes a default by the terms of the mortgage. If 396; Huxton v. Bishop, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) U. S. (4 Cr.) 333; bk. 2, L. ed. 638; 13; Watkins v. Crouch, 5 Leigh (Va.), Rapelie v. Emory, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 349; 522; Rumboil 21. Ball, 10 Mod. 38. And it bk. 1, L. ed. 170; Farquhar 7'. Morris, 7 is not necessary to make a demand before T. R. 124; Bayley on Bills (5th Ed.), 5 suit, even where the note is payable on 14, p. 59; Thompson on Bills, § 1, p. 32. demand in a particular place; in such case, 1. The insolvency of the mortgagor however, it may be shown in defence that having put it out of his power to perforın the party was ready at the appointed an agreement to secure the performance place to make payment, in which case, if of which the mortgage had been given, he brings the money into court he will be a foreclosure was allowed before the exrelieved from interest and costs. Carley piration of the time for performance. v. Vance, 17 Mass. 389; Green v. Goings, Harding v. Mill. 34 Conn. 458. 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 652, 655; Caldwell v. On the other hand, the non-payment of Cassidy, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 271; Place v. the debt will not authorize the foreclosure Union Express Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 19, 31; of a mortgage given as a security " in Gay v. Paine, 5 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 108; case any of the notes prove to be insolWalcott v. Van Santvoord, 17 Johns. (N. vent or worthless " when it was Y.) 248; s. c., 8 Am. Dec. 396; Foden v. shown that any of the notes were worthSharp, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 183; Locklin v. less or that the maker was insolvent. Moore, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 308; Nazro v. Fetrow v. Merrewether, 53 Ill. 275. Fuller, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 376; Hurton v. A mortgage of personal property proBishop, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 13: Fullerton v. vided that the morigagor should not sufBank of United States, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) fer the property to be attached on mesne 604; bk., 7 L. ed. 28; Bank of United process. The property was attached, States v. Smith, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.) 171, however, by the mortgagor's consent and bk. 6, L. Ed. 443: Fenton v. Goundry, 13 procurement, but the attachment was

held to be void, and that the mortgagor had When No Time of Payment is Specified, no attachable interest in the property. It the debt is due immediately. Gillett v. Bal- was nevertheless held to be a breach of com. 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 170. See also Selleck this condition in the mortgage. Crocker 21. French, 1 Conn. 32; Broth v. Brown, 103 v. Atwood, 144 Mass. 588. See the reInd. 23; s. c., I West. Rep. 128; Green cent case of Trustee sof the Canandaigua 9. Brebilbis, I G. Greene (Iowa), 552; Academy v. McKechnie et al., 90 N. Y. Francis v. Castleman, 4 Bibb (Ky.), 282; 618, as to what will constitute the hapTaylor v. Knox, i Dana (Ky.), 391; S. C., pening of the event provided for in the 5 Dana (Ky.), 463; Goodloe v. Clay, 6 B. morigage for the maturing of the debt. Mon. (Ky.) 236; Swett v. Hooper, 62 Me. A stipulation in the mortgage that the 54; Jillson v. Hill, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 316; mortgagee would “not assign or dispose Dodge v. Perkins, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 369; of the mortgage until his future advance, Weeks v. Hasty, 13 Mass. 218; Eaton v. amounting to $1000, had actually been Truesdeil, 40 Mich. 1, 6; Phill v. Phillips. made," does not prevent the foreclosure

N. Y. 406, affirming i Duer (N. Y.), for the sum actually advanced and due 369; People v.County of New York,5 Cow. thereon, although not amounting to (N. Y.) 331; Rensselaer Glass -factory v. $4000. Baldwin v. Flag. 36 N. J. Eq. 48. Reid, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 587; Clark v. Bar- Where the mortgage contained no prolow, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 183: Rhoads v. vision for foreclosure upon non-payment Reed, 89 Pa. St. 436; Heath v. Page, 63 of interest, although given for the secuPa. St. 108; S. C., 3 Am. Rep. 533; rity of the payment of the note with inNorthern Pa. R. Co. v. Adams, 54 Pa. St. terest, a foreclosure cannot be had until 94; Hummel v. Brown, 24 Pa. St. 313; the principal sum becomes due. BrodLessee Dilworth v. Sinderling, 1 Binn. ribb v. Tibbets. 58 Cal. 6. (Pa.) 488; s. c., 2 Am. Dec. 469; Chees- The failure of mortgagor to pay taxes, borough v. Hunter, I Hill (S. C.), 400; held, such default as to justify the adver. Smetz v. Kennedy, Riley (S. C.), 218; tisement of the property for sale. BuildAikin v. Peay, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) 15; s. ing Asso. No. 1 of Baltimore City v. C., 53 Am. Dec. 684; Roberts v. Cocke, Kratz, 55 Md. 394. 28 Gratt. (Va.) 207; Young v. Godbe, 82 Where a mortgage had been given to U. S. (15 Wall.) 562; bk. 21, L. ed. 250; secure a bond for support of husband and Brewster 2. Wakefield, 63 U. S. (22 How.) wife during their lives, the breach neces118, 127: bk. 16, L. ed. 301; Sheehy v. sary to be shown in the foreclosure proMendeville, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 209, 217; bk. ceeding need not be shown to have oc3, L. ed. 317; United States v. Gurney, 8 curred during the lifetime of the husband,

the time for the payment of the mortgage be extended, of course

who died first; nor is it necessary to the demand is not. Pendleton v. Rowe, suit to show that the widow had made 34 Cal. 149. any claim for her support on the admin- Giving of Additional Security is suffiistrator of deceased mortgagor before the cient consideration. Trayser v. Trustees suit was commenced. Plummer, Adm'r, of Asbury University, 38 Ind. 556, 567. v. Doughty, 78 Me. 341.

Payment on Note Before Due is a suffi. 1. See Reed v. Home Saving Bank, 127 cient consideration. Newsan v. Finch, Mass. 295; Burt v. Saxton, i Hun (N. Y.), 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 175. 551; Sharpe v. Arnott, 51 Cal. 188; Pendle- Agreement with Third Person respecting ton . Rowe, 34 Cal. 149; Maher v. Lan- the equiry of redemption is a sufficient from, 86 111. 513: Flynn v. Mudd, 27 Ill. consideration where such third person 323; Redman v. Deputy, 26 Ind. 338; Lee acts upon that agreement. See Loomis V. West Jersey Land Co., 29 N. J. Eq. (2 v. Donovan, 17 Ind. 198; Fellows v. Stew.) 377; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 21. Prentiss, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 512; s. C., 45 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Gr.) 338; Massaker v. Am. Dec. 484; Charlton v. Tardy, 28 Mackerley, 9 N. J. Eq. (1 Stockt.) 440; Ind. 452; Galvin v. Wiggin, 27 Ind. 489; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Bonnell, Redman v. Deputy, 26 Ind. 333; Dicker35 Ohio St. 365; Albert v. Grosvenor In- son v. Board of Commissioners of Ripley vestment Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 122.

Co., 6 Ind. 128; s. c., 63 Am. Dec. 373: Consideration for Extension.-An agree- Harbert v. Dumont, 3 Ind. 346; Fowler ment for an extension of time, based upon v. Brooks, 13 N. H. 240; Bailey v. a valid consideration, suspends the right Adams, 10 N. H. 162; McComb v. Kic. to foreclose until the expiration of such tridge, 14 Ohio, 348; Austin v. Dorwin, time. Maher v. Lanfrom, 86 Ill. 513; 21 Vt. 38; Creath's Admr. v. Sims, 46 Flynn v. Mudd, 27 III. 332; Warner v. U. S. (5 How.) 192; bk. 12, L. ed. 111; Campbell, 26 111, 282; Trayser v. Trustees Reed v. Home Sav. Bank, 127 Mass. of Asbury University, 39 Ind. 556. 567; 295. Carlton v. Tardy, 28 Ind. 452; Calbin v. Extension of Time by Parol is valid Wiggam, 27 Ind. 489; Redman v. Deputy, when founded on sufficient consideration. 26 Ind. 338; Loomis v. Donnolan, 17 Ind. See Dodge v. Crandall, 30 N. Y. 295; 198; Dickerson v. Board, etc., 6 Ind. Dearborn v. Cross, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 18; 128; s. C., 63 Am. Dec. 373; Harbert Townsend v. Empire Stone-dressing Co.. v. Dumont, 3 Ind. 346; Reed v. Home 6 Duer (N.Y.), 208; Fish v. Hayward, 28 Sav. Bank, 127 Mass. 295; Fowler v. Hun (N. Y.), 456; Lattimore v. Harsen, Brooks, 13 N. H. 240 Bailey V. Adams, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 430; Flemming v. Gil10 N. H. 162; Tompkins v. Tompkins, bert, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 528; Keating v.Price, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C.E. Gr.) 338; Massaker v. 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 22; De la Croix Mackerley, 9 N. J. Eq. (1 Stockt.) 440; 7. Bulkley, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 71; Tomp. Newsam v. Finch, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 175; kins v. Tompkins, 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Prentice v. Fellows, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 512; Gr.) 338; Flynn v. Mudd, 27 III. 323; Burt v. Saxton, i Hun (N. Y.). 551; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Bonnell, 429; s. C., 7 Am. Dec. 652; Van Houten 35 Ohio St. 365; McComb v. Kittridge, 14 v. McCarty, 4 N. J. Eq. (3 H. W. Gr.) Ohio, 348; Austin v. Dorwin, 20 Vt. 38; 141, King v. Morford, I N. J. Eq. (í Creath's Admr. v. Sims, 46 U. S. 15 Saxı.) 274, 280; Cox v. Bennett, 13 N. J. How.) 192; bk. 12, L. ed. III. In re L. (1 J. S. Gr.) 165, 171. In re Betts, 4 Betts, 4 Dill. C.C. 93: Albert v. Grosvenor Dill

. C. C. 93; s. c., 7 Rep. 225. Investment Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 123.

This is true notwithstanding the genAn agreement for extension without eral rule that it is not permissible to vary, consideration is void. See Sharpe v. supply, or contradict the terms of a Arnott, 51 Cal. 188; Pendleton v. Rowe, written instrument by parol evidence, 34 Cal. 149; Massaker v. Mackerley, 9 particularly where it is under seal. N. J. Eq. (1 Stock.) 440; Trayser v. Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) Trustees of Asbury University, 39 Ind. 425; C., 7 Am. Dec. 499; Hill 7'. 556, 567.

Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co. 73 N. Y. Payment of Interest in Advance is a 35; Van Bokkelen v. Taylor, 62 N. Y. sufficient consideration. Maher 7. Lan- 185; Baker ?'. Higgins, 21 N. Y. 379; from, 86 I!l. 513, 517; Flynn 7'. Mudd, Brewster 7. Silence, 8 N. Y. 207, 213: 27 III. 323; Narner v. Campbell, 26 II. Cork v. Eaton, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 439; 282; Redman v. Deputy, 26 Ind. 338. Taylor 71. Baldwin, io Barb. (N. Y.) 586; But prompt payment of interest of Egleston v. Kinckerbacker. 6 Barb. (N.

[ocr errors]

the mortgage cannot be foreclosed until the expiration of the extended time, unless made without consideration ; in which case the agreement for extension may be disregarded and the foreclosure at once enforced.? Y.) 464; Sayre v. Peck, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) ment is rendered in favor of the defend464; Patterson v. Hull, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) ant upon his answer, the amount of the 747, 754; Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. debt will be ascertained, and the suit Y.) 41; Wright v. Taylor, i Edw. Ch. (N. treated as one to foreclose, and the costs Y.) 226; Webb v. Rice, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 219; of the restraining suit made a lien upon Hull 2. Adams, i Hill (N. Y.), 601; the mortgaged property. Reimer v. Meais 2. Lansingh, i Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) Schlitz, 49 Wis. 273. 124, 134; Bayard 2. Malcom, I Johns. Where the mortgage contained a cov: (N. Y.) 453. 467; Mann v. Mann, 1 Johns. enant that mortgagor should “pay all (N.Y.) 231; Parkhurst v. Van Portland, I expenses of collecting said debt, including Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 274; Crosier v. Aser, attorneys' fees, and that said money 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 187: Jarvis v. Palmer, shall be secured by this mortgage," the u Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 650; Loober v. Le mortgagees having recovered judgment Roy, 2 Sandí. (N. Y.) 202; Russell v. at law upon the mortgage debt, and had Kinney, i Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 38; Evans paid their attorneys for prosecuting the 7. Wells, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 323, 337; Lee suit, it was held, on a bill filed by them 21. Evans, 8 Cal +32; Reckley v. Munson, to foreclose the mortgage, to reimburse 22 Conn. 299; Mann v. Smyser, 76 Ill. them the amounts so paid their attorney, 365; Harlow 11. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56; Cin. that the suit would be sustained for a ciunati, U. & F. W. R. R. Co. v. Pearce, reasonable amount, to be determined by 28 Ind. 502; Pilmer 7. State Bank, 16 the proofs adduced. L'Engle & HartIowa. 321; Jack v. Naber, 15 Iowa, 450; ridge, Adm’rs 7. L'Engle, 22 Fla. 131. Peters v. Davis, 29 Mo. 184; Reed v. Where the mortgage provided that the Jones, Wis. 272; Stevens v. Cooper, I mortgagee should not“ institute any proJohns. Ch. (N. Y.) 425; Webb v Rice, 6 ceeding to foreclose until the maker and Hill (N. Y.), 219; Evans v. Wells. 22 indorser had been sued to insolvency, Wend. (N. Y.) 324, 339: Powell v. Mon- the right to take possession is postponed son & B. Mg. Co., 3 Mason C. C. 358. until the happening of this contingency,

1. Looms 7. Donavan, 17 Ind. 198; and the mortgagee cannot maintain ejeci. Frayser v. Trustees of Indiana Univer: ment before that time. Grandin v. Hurt, sity, 39 Ind. 556; Tompkins v. Tomp- 80 Ala. 116. kins, 21 N. J. Eq. 338.

A mortgagee has the right to pay taxes 2. Massaker v. Mackerley, i Stock. on the land, or redeem the same from Eq. (N. J.) 440.

tax sale; and the amounts so paid are a The mortgagee may pursue all his valid claim against the mortgagor, and remedies concurrently. He may sue at enforceable as a part of the mortgage law and obtain judgment upon the debt debt; and whatever amount is due, includsecured by the mortgage, while at the ing taxes, at time of foreclosure, constisame time he proceeds by bill in equity tutes an indivisible demand, and cannot to foreclose the mortgage. Pettibone v. be separated and enforced by separate Stevens, 15 Conn. 29; Juchter v. Boehr, suits. Johnson i'. Payne, ii Neb. 269. 63 Ga. 71; Andrews v. Scotton, 2 Bland D. had mortgaged land in which W. (Md.), 629; McCall v. Lenox, 9 S. & R. owned the equity of redemption. W. (Pa ) 302; Ayres v. Wattson, 57 Pa. St. deeded the land to S., and as a part of 360; Longworth v. Flagg, 10 Ohio, 300; the trade agreed to pay a certain portion Kneizer v. Bradstreet, i Greene (Iowa), of the amount due on D.'s mortgage, and 382; Downing 2. Palmateer, 1 T. B. gave S. a mortgage on the land taken Mon. (Ky.) 64; Burtis v. Bradford, 122 from S. in the trade, to secure this agreeMass. 129; Thuber 1. Jewitt, 3 Mich. ment. Subsequently S. quitclaimed the 295; Satterwhite v. Kennedy, 3 Strobh. land, subject to D.'s mortgage, the grantee (S. Car.) 457; Chapman v. Clough, 6 Vt. assuming the mortgage debt as a part of 123.

the purchase price. W. failed to pay D. The cost of the suit at law will become what he had agreed to pay on D.'s morta part of the mortgage debt in the fore- gage, and it was held thai S. was, in conclosure proceeding. Pettibone 7. Stevens, sequence of this failure, entitled to fore!5 Con n. 19. And, where the mortgagor close the mortgage given to him by W. is unsuccessful in a suit to restrain the Stuart 7'. Warden, 42 Mich. 154. mortga gee from foreclosing, and judg. Where a mortgage is given to secure

[ocr errors]

Where the entire debt may be treated as due upon any default in payment of interest, or other instalment at the election of the several debts falling due at different Smart v. McKay, 16 Ind. 45. See Cecil v. times, or a single debt due in instal. Dynes, 2 Ind. 166; Hough v. Doyle, 3 ments, the mortgage may be foreclosed Blackf. (Ind.) 300; Greenman v. Pattison, when the first becomes due, and the court 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 465: Andrews v. Jones, 3 will control the surplus so as to protect Blackf. (Ind.) 440; Mobray v. Leckie, 42 the portions not due. Hatcher v. Chan- Md. 474: Schooley v. Romain, 31 Md. cery, 71 Ga. 689.

575; Salmon v. Clageit, 3 Bland Ch. A nole, secured by mortgage, contained (Md.) 125; Magruder v. Eggleston, 41 the following clause: Any interest re- Miss. 284; Goodman v. Cincinnati & C. maining due and unpaid shall be added R. Co., 2 Disney (Ohio), 176; Baker v. monthly to the principal, and bear interest Lehman, Wright (Ohio), 522; Richards v. at the same rate;" and the mortgage pro- Holmes, 59 U. S. (16 How.) 143: bk. vided that, in case of default in payment 15, L. ed. 304. In the absence of a clause of the principal sum, or interest thereon, making the whole debt due on breach or any part thereof, according to the of a condition, the mortgage cannot be terms of the note, the mortgagee might foreclosed for the whole amount, nor the sell the premises in the manner prescribed entire mortgaged premises sold to satisfy by law, and out of proceeds of sale re- the partial default. Mussina v. Bartlett, tain principal sum, with interest, costs, 8 Port. (Ala.) 284; Greenman v. Pattison, charges, and attorneys' fees; and a sub- 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 465; Adams v. Essex, I sequent mortgage between the same par- Bibb (Ky.), 149; s. C., 4 Am. Dec. 623; ties provided that all arrearages of Caufman v. Sayre, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 202; monthly interest then existing, or there- Magruder v. Eggleston, 41 Miss. 284, after to accrue upon the prior note, shall James v. Fisk, 17 Miss. (9 Smed. & M.) bear interest from the date respectively 144, 153: s. C., 47 Am. Dec. 111; Suffern at which they have accrued or shall ac- Johnson, i Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 450; s.c., crue, at a higher rate than that expressed 19 Am. Dec. 440. in the note. It was held that, construing 2. See Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Cal. the note and mortgage together, that on 16, 28: Jones v. Lawrence, 18 Ga. 277; default of the monthly payment of inter- Adams Essex, I Bibb (Ky.), 149; est the mortgagee might foreclose; and s c.. 4 Am. Dec. 623; Caufman v. Sayre, that an action of foreclosure was com- 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 202; West Branch pliance with terms of mortgage as to sale; Bank v. Chester, 11 Pa. St. 282; Richand that the clause giving right to sell in ards v. Holmes, 59 U. S. (18 How.) case of default refers to default in pay- 143; bk. 15. L. ed. 304; Stanhope v. ment of interest, and not to a default in Manners, 2 Eden, 197; Gladwyn v. Hitchadding it, when unpaid, to the principal man, 2 Vern. 135. debt; this was the privilege of the mort- Failure to Pay Instalment may be made gagee, not the right of the mortgagor. a condition for the maturing of the whole Brickell v. Batchelder. 62 Cal. 623. debt, in which case a failure to pay an

1. Failure to Pay Interest. — The parties instalment works a forfeiture of the mortmay make the whole mortgage debt due gage. Whiccher v. Webb, 44 Cal. 127; upon the failure to perform a single con- Ottawa Northern Plank Road Co. v. dition; as, on failure to pay interest, -see Murray, 15 III. 336; Noell v. Gaines, 68 McLean v. Pressley, 56 Ala. 211; Pope v. Mo. 649: Beisel v. Artman, 10 Neb. 181; Durant, 26 Iowa, 133; Holden v. Gilbert, Ackerson v. Lodi Branch R. R. Co., 31 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 208; Hosie v. Gray, N. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 42; Voorhis v. Mur71 Pa. St. 398;—and such condition will be phy, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Gr.) 434; enforced by the courts,- Richards v. McLean v. Pressley, 56 Ala. 211; Andrews Holmes, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 143; bk. 15, L. v. Jones, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 440; Indiana & ed. 304. See Pope v. Durant, 26 Iowa, 233; 1. C. R. Co. v. Sprague, 103 U. S. (13 Holden v. Gilbert, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 208. Otto) 756; bk. 26, L. ed. 554. And in

Effect of Such & Condition is not a such case an action for foreclosure and penalty, but a provision for the earlier sale of the premises may be commenced maturing of a debt on the happening of

See Rubens v. Prindle, 44 the contingency specified. Stillwell v. Barb. (N. Y.) 336; Dwight v. Webster, Adams, 29 Ark 340; Grattan v. Wiggins, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 47; s. C., 19 How. (N. 23 Cal. 16; Jones v. Lawrence, 18 Ga. Y.) Pr. 349; 10 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. 128; 277; Morgenstern v. Klees, 30 III. 422; Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 29; Taber v. Cincinnati L. & C. R. Co., 15 s. c., 16 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 102; Grattan Ind. 459; Hunt z'. Harding, 11 Ind. 245; V. Wiggins, 23 Cal. 16; Morgenstera




mortgagee or trustee, the whole debt is nevertheless not due un. til the election has been exercised ;1 and a sale before such election could not be authorized, even by an act of the legislature.” 1. Klees, 30 III. 422; Ottawa Northern But the right to exercise such option is Plank Road Co. v. Murray, 15 III. 336; an indivisible condition, and cannot be Mobray v. Leckie, 42 Md. 474. See also exercised by an assignee in part only of McDonald v. Vinson, 56 Miss. 497.

the debt. See Marine Bank of Buffalo v. 1. See Macloon v. Allen 49 N. Y. 448; International Bank, 9 Wis. 57. Rubens v. Prindle, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 336; Relieving from Forfeiture.—The court Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 29. has no power to relieve from forfeiture,

The Mortgagee is not Estopped to Exer. see Savannah & M. R. Co. 2. Lancaster, cise His Right of Election by the com- 62 Ala. 555; Mowbry v. Leckie, 42 Md. mencement of an action to foreclose prior 474; Schooley v. Romain, 31 Md. 557, to the expiration of the time limited for 574; Magruder v. Eggleston, 41 Miss. the payment of the money; or by the ac- 284; Bennett 2'. Stevenson, 53 N. Y. 508; ceptance of

an instalment of principal Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 29, falling due before filing an amended sup- 33; Hale v. Gouverneur, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. plemental complaint. See Odell v. Hoyt, Y.) 207; O'Connor v. Shipman, 48 How. 73 N. Y. 343; Malcolm v. Allen, 49 N. Y. (N. Y.) Pr. 126; Noyes v. Clark, 7 448; Lawson v. Barron, 18 Hun (N. Y.), Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 179; s. C., 32 Am. Dec. 414

620; Gowlett v. Hanforth, 2 W. Bl. Waiver of Right of Election, respecting: 958; Steel v. Bradfield, 4 Taunt. 227;— Wilson v. Bird, 28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 153. except possibly in cases of fraud,-see

Election that mortgage debt become Noyes v. Clark, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 179; due. See Harper v. Ely, 56 III, 179, 189; s. C., 32 Am. Dec. 720;-or a denial in Randall v. Middleton, 26 N.J. Eq. (10 C.E. good faith and upon reasonable grounds, Gr.) 543; Malcolm v. Allen, 49 N. Y. 448. ihough the party is liable to pay the in

Notice of Election, it seems, need not terest in arear, or claim that he has paid be given. See Randall v. Middleton, 26 it even though in error as to such liabiliN. J. Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) 543; Harper v. ty, -see Wilcox v. Allen, 36 Mich. 160. Ely, 56 Ill. 179, 189; Malcolm v. Allen, However, where the only questions are 49 N. Y. 448.

as to a proper tender at the prescribed Notice of elections, it seems, need not time, though it must be determined upon be given. See Hoodless ?'. Reid, 112 Ill. the trial, see Bennett v. Stevenson, 53 105; Marston v. Brittenham, 76 III. 611; N. Y. 508, 510; Asendorf v. Meyer, 2 Princeton Loan & Trust Co. 2. Mun Daly (N. Y.), 278; Lynch v. Cunningham, son, 60 Ill. 371, 375; Heath v. Hall, 60 6 Abb. (N. Y.) 94; Thurston v. Marsh, 5 II. 334; Harper v. Ely, 56 Ill. 179. Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. 399; s. C., I4 How. (N. Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., Y.) Pr. 572; Spring v. Fisk, 21 N. J. Eq. 96 Ind. 510, 520; English v. Carney, 25 (6 C. E. Gr.) 175. Mich, 178, 184; Young v. McLean, 63 N. 2. Randolph v. Middleton, 26 N. J. C. 576; Hunt v. Keech, 3 Abb. (N. Y.) Eq. 543. The clause in this mortgage Pr. 204; Howard v. Farley, 3 Robt. (N. was as follows: " In case default shall Y.) 599, 602. Compare Dean v. Apple- be made in the payment of any halfgarth, 65 Cal. 391; Malcolm v. Smith, 49 year's interest on any of said bonds at Wis. 200, 215, 217; Marine Bank v. Inter- the time and in the manner in the counational Bank, 9 Wis. 57, 68; Basse v. pon issued therewith provided, the said Gallegger, 7 Wis. 442, 446; s. C., 76 Am. coupon having been presented for pay. Dec. 225; Hall v. Delaplaine, 5 Wis. 206; ment, and the payment of the interest s. C., 68 Am. Dec. 57.

specified therein having been demanded, Such notice, given by a duly authorized and such default shall continue for the agent or attorney, is sufficient. Rosseel space or period of three months after the v. Jarvis, 15 Wis. 571.

interest expressed in said coupon shall Who May Exercise Option. --Such option have become due, and from and after the may be exercised by the mortgagee, -See coupon shall have been presented, and the Heath v. Hall, 60 Ill. 344; Princeton Loan payment thereof demanded as aforesaid; & Trust Co. v. Munson, 60 I11. 171; Har- ihen and thereupon, the principal of all per v. Ely, 58 Ill. 179;—his assignee, of the said bonds shall, at the election of -Heath v. Hall, 60 III. 344, 349), or any the trustees, became immediately due person for whose benefit the provision is and payable.” Beasley, C. J., in the inserted, - Mallory v. West Shore & H. R. course of his opinion says : “ The prinR. Co., 35 N. Y. Super.Ct. (3 J. & S.) 174; cipal moneys secured by the mortgage Fellows z. Gilman, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 414. were not to fall due until the first day of 8 C. of L-13


« PreviousContinue »