OCR Text |
Show ';,- ; ' i . ' tBECISIoy OF TUB SUPiltiMB COURT. L , fjostw Sifowr, lpkintf is Error,) ' - ' ' ; ,v ' v . ftftjiuiw Ssvio, Defendant in Erpir, .) ssmIt , 'go Court, Utab Territory, Jaiwr Klf ' ..'ti nry term, 1881, In mo t wi wvct com, or cuum It'' "f ' l.t.n. 1 COCKTTi I'?. r Action to recover two thousand three 'tturcd dollars alfedged't be dm upon : ' ' parol contract for the whs of ft certain tehdr claim. Pie, general teeae, and tetiig op (pedal natter by way of defence, and . ( kefow (we)r la emclderaMM by htm "Will dteKviif (d t& Jtlkifttftef M0f tS0 mAb euTajlauet MJUutful , tThe lMrweM k then 'si out In the , .snwiwer. It eoataliw the feKow'ng prav- pt,.' , Mett! "TW conveyance to Intended as a k J 'mortgage to secure the payment of three K ' ? ttewaftd dollar within forty-Ire days F '" ' ?fraw the date oMbla Indenture without B( .-,.' iatereet fro the said party, of the first B? part ad te the said party of the second p ; part, a4 Ume preeenta shaH be void If w ; : ' mM sayssetrtfee made." Mm caee.de- H i v.,-- ;fak tbatt be made In said payment a II ',' 'tibereproTbled, then tho'pariy.w (Ire sec- I nd part hi hereby ewpoweri' J to tell the - thereof, a pubHo auction la thirty dy I . irfter due d proper notice, and oat of tho I . -mney arkinjt frotn aatd tale to retain the Hi Hid IW of three thousaml doKan wkh the Kl eeeM and cherges of making atd tale, nml Wkfm ' oTcrpliM, if any tlwre be, shall be paid by Hip - ' the said party nwking said sale on de- mtm 4 ' wand of the party of the Erst; part, or. his Bl:. ' aatw.'' Deftmlaatj Stowc, then de- Hl ' 'tdes.t.bat said mortgage has been sued 'up)B, deiiirs all ludeitcdBC$s, ticiitcs 'that there wa ahy promlge to pay said sum of '' -5rtWo' thousand dollar other' than , that t ; aecured and provided for In the mortgage. -' Judgment Was rendered for 11 Savage, for tweaty three hundred dollars, arid Stowc brings'lhe case to this curt upoin error BMa.( 1 i . , -ird rcliea upon the ruling of the court' as HjlV ;' coatalue4 in tho Wit, of exceptlott, for' a' B . ",teertalf the luflgtoent. I '-'. " that the cause caino, on for trial ..before i. the court on jfcd complaint and anawcr, 1 , 'ami that it was ndraitted that a sala liatl V f ".taken place uhdef. the i po(:r,cpntainc4 In i .t vtho nortgagc, and sef en'hnhdrcd 'dollaw; realized, l'latntilf then callcd;tt' witneis Jr-t "who testified that defendant agreed to " pay three.thbuwnd, dollars for ''the claim r, 1 .wentloneij In thff complaint, and" went In F r topossesiion under those terms. Th'w . .itstlHiohy was objected to because lit wa ;ral and.referred to a contract or.trajisnc-"' or.trajisnc-"' , ' tlon contained In the, mortgage, nud; bc- ;came there yrta eridence of Indebtedness' j. -' (If any there was) In thd mortgage, which I' . objection was overruled and the witness . allowed to, testify. ' :' - "x E , , .;TwoqaestIous. arc presented, by this W'' ' , bill of exceptions for the dec'uiou of this rst.? llad tlie plalhtitf a right to, fc- '? I sort to h& action against tho defendant VI for "the balnuco- of., the three; thoutnd X polish, after proceeillu'g to sell the.JIorl-P the.JIorl-P jgaged property, t .8ecoml,,could parol eridence be intro-f intro-f . . dttccd In supjtort of the original Indebted- , es br cpntract which existed cntcrely n r" t M MCU contract, merged iti the K .Asifirst'oucstlon fs one of great int- pdrtasee, and tlie decisions upon it sotrie-ffl sotrie-ffl erhatnletlng; we regret that we are I if? oapew la establish a rule without the , Ifi !' aU text book, and wiUi the as-aisUueesfttrt as-aisUueesfttrt a few adjudicated cases: . W- , We are free t confess in deciding this l qatio, re are gwenicd by the author!- 1 1 f ties fa Vew Voii.aad as these are not ' f oaludicted by any ltou before us, we ' - cheerfully yield as tvwrious opinion we i ssla tavecutCfUtiodtjfwa this subject Jam fa WtH .coasidered case at Bpcuecr vs. m Jlartford, i Wend, 38l tUeaul say the ii tfct of a formtoiHxe aj a Awtjjajegirt'n W t0 9re bo4 4U, ku fee flf r con- if sMerwlby.Jtr.'iustlee fiojry;i ftatek &, ' s. WWte;.3 Oallison, lWwlw ms f, JJvtU;Midttsion that i til lUeexH 1 were u ao differcnoe of opinion assMg Jae Uafaei jvthU whose datJJoua have ftp: bnonil4rcd4 tist at law fJrtcjQure of the nwrtg()4 Jj' bar, ta a aetion fj. , on theatteadaat bond. Jfc. ! . . .'la Uie case of the OUbe Insurance 8. .ft'B'P'iny - Lansing, 5 Co wen, 380, the m question was, whether a foreclosure of a Ifc . .'wPB'.nwl, sale under it-Operated as 9&r MesiuUhmentor the debt, and it was K there held (hat It was ai extlnguUhmeni 1 mi uo.fartber than tattoo amount produced by ' such sale." Kl, Iu the case of Lansing ts. Oodct, 9 m.1 C0". 403. tho question, was pre- f !nl on demurrer, whether a foreclosure IS i r tDe mortgaged premise without a sale, fit ' operated as a cancellation or the debt, fl , Dd 11 was held it did not without an f aserment, that the mortgaged premise f r'orulncleotalueto pay the debt.f if j There teems to be this destinetion iu the M i .th'it if the mortgagee prefers a slm4 foreelosure ot the mortgaged premise i to should account for them to the mort- BP, Sff,.i tmount 01 lh JeUt. if he tV M ttortgaged premises, and they ,,ttc.B lets than the a'unt of the debt1 Ml rE?irtwe mVr toneoreredou the Uud, frbmthe-wlythe balK(ng to tW, mortSfSr7;.,ab alsetajefctw 10 J6hn48ii J punkley ts. CfiflBriRgi 3 Jolts CVjrR-03l. In whlc IheChan-' Ctllor f'Sti-resslysays, thtatrTfWclonl suit ntay;:be:;i?oht on the- bond;for.tlw; deficiciioT, Alutln thecuse of , Janes w CWIyrilfcht. ' i-wrt decide tlmt tile, morttasc has twJ repicillcst one fit and the other irj phhthm, and, that both Way be pursued at the same time Jb'rom these authorities It follows that tho plaintiff below lht not ' exhaust hi remedy by . the sn'ltf of the mortgaged preniiMi", and that he had a right to sue. for the tmlance remaining .due after dc ducting the sum rcaliol by the I4 8 llut it ts said that, the "ctinrt erred In allowing the witness to testify in relation to the t erbal contract, as io contract was, hiergcd f tho tnorigage; Wo do not think so. The .mortgage did uofr, cxtiu-jruisli cxtiu-jruisli the contract, npr was it merged. The contract existed. Indendentty ufibe' morigage, and, was lust as Valid and binding bin-ding in parol, as if it bud been In writing; Tim mortgage sm dcieiident upon thai contract, not the contract upott jthe'roort gage. One was an obligation to pay; the other mere security for the. payment 'Ac cording to the, decision in G John Ch'y, K.,the morlgagte could Institute suit upoii both at' the aame time, one at law, tho other in chancery, oile In ,fttienamf the ether In 'rml't ltat' this bmirdno't:b? tho can if the contract merged in thti .mortgage, .mort-gage, Tlie mortgage In the case' before ns, rcckea the terms of the contract, recognise recogni-se It binding force and rnlidity, and ex-preeeiy ex-preeeiy states that it ft given to secure the paysseate three thottsand dollars In forty fire days frewi that date' What three thousand dollars we might ask? Certain ly none ether than the fhrec thon.Mtid doMars that the witnesa testified Stowc ru to pay Savage for the jnlnlng elui. Tree, parol testimony canwH be intro-Ja. eef to vary written bwtrumerit, nor can It be Introduced to prove antecedent con; versation between the parties making a contract, when Ris k evidence that the' co tract waa reduced, to writing. Hut this case does sot fall within either of these wett established rules of law, The aMtratt teas1 ftW rtttvtid' tit miling, the mortgage being the seenrity for the eon trnct and net the eoatract Itself, and the court decided correctly la allowing the wttaeaa to give evidence" of the parol agreement. ' Judgment afirmed. " ,t |