Benjamin Bank v. Doherty

69 P. 732, 29 Wash. 233, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 580
Washington Supreme Court·Decided July 26, 1902·No. No. 4171·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mount, J.

Action to foreclose a mortgage on account of unpaid installments of interest. As we view this case, there is but one question necessary to be discussed, viz., can this action be maintained before the maturity of the principal note ? The note is as follows:

“$2,500.00. Butte', Montana, January 3, 1900. For value received, three years after date I promise to pay toi B. Bank or order the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500), at his office, in Butte, Montana, with interest at the rate of two¡ per cent, per month, payable monthly. The privilege hereby granted to the maker of this note to pay any amount not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) per month thereon, interest to be reduced according to such payments. Payments to be made on interest day. Maby T. Dohekty.”

At the same time and place the maker of the note executed and delivered to the payee a mortgage which recited that the same was given “to secure the payment for a certain promissory note bearing equal date herewith.” The mortgage provided as follows:

“blow, if the said first party shall on or before maturity pay or cause to be paid the said note, with interest that may be due thereon, then the foregoing conveyance shall be null and void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue; but should the said first party, from any cause, fail or refuse to pay said note, with interest, or any part thereof, when due¡, and suit be commenced to foreclose this mortgage, then the said second party may and shall have and recover from the said first party a reasonable attorney’s fee; the amount of such fee to be [235] fixed and allowed by the court before whom such suit is brought, and taxed and collected as other costs.”

• It is stated, as a general rule, that a mortgage cannot be foreclosed before it is due, or there is a breach of some condition. 2 Jones, Mortgages (5th ed.), §1174; Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure, § 34.

And also:

“If the mortgage contains an absolute covenant that the principal shall not be called in during a specific period,, or until the happening of a certain event, then no default in the payment of the interest in the mean time will enable the mortgagee to sue.” 2 Jones, Mortgages (5th ed.), § 1178.
“But it would seem that in the absence of a stipulation giving the power, there can be no foreclosure of a mortgage given as security for the payment of a promissory note and the interest thereon until the principal sum becomes due. . . . the interest falling due yearly, or at other stated periods, on a note secured by mortgage, is an installment of the debt, and . . . the mortgage may be foreclosed to enforce its payment, because the mortgage must have bren given to secure the interest as well as the principal, and the law will not withhold a remedy until the period elapses for the maturity of the whole debt. And where a condition is inserted in the mortgage which authorizes a sale to be made upon the happening of any default, the failure to- pay interest when it is due is a default within the meaning of such a clause and will entitle the mortgagee to foreclose.” Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosures, § 42.

Conceding the foregoing general rules to be the law applicable to the case in hand, and conceding the facts to be that interest payments had not been made monthly, it requires a consideration of the mortgage to- determine whether a default in an interest payment is a breach thereof. The note clearly provides that the maker shall have until January 3, 1903, to pay the principal sum, [236] and that interest shall he payable monthly. It was within the power of the parties to- have made the mortgage security for the whole or any part of the note:, or for the note and interest, or either. It was also within their power to have provided in the mortgage that upon failure to- pay the note or the interest, or either, foreclosure proceedings may ha had. Or, as is usual in such cases, the mortgage might have contained a provision that foreclosure proceedings should be had “upon failure to. perform any of the conditions,” or “upon failure to pay the note according to its tenor and effect,” or “when payments become severally duei,” etc. A breach of any such condition would have subjected the mortgage to foreclosure. But we find the provision in this mortgage as follows:

“ISTow, if the said first party shall, on or before maturity, pay or cause to he paid the said note, with, interest that may he due thereon, then the foregoing conveyance shall he null and void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.”

In other words, if the first party at maturity fails to pay the said note, with interest that may he due thereon, then the foregoing conveyance shall be in full force and virtue. It seems clear that this is an express provision that the debt was permitted to run until the expiration of three years from the date of the note and mortgage, and that the mortgage should stand as security for the principal, with whatever interest should bei allowed to accumulate thereon, and should not he foreclosed unless there was a failure to pay the note at maturity. There is no ■other provision in the mortgage from which any other intention can he inferred, except it he the following:

“But should the said first party, from any cause, fail ■or refuse to pay said note, with interest, or any part thereof, when due, and suit he commenced to. foreclose this [237] mortgage, then the said second party may and shall have and recover from the said first party a reasonable attorney’s fee; the amount of such fee to be fixed and allowed by the court, before whom such suit is brought, and taxed and collected as other costs.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benjamin Bank v. Doherty, 69 P. 732, 29 Wash. 233, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 580 (Wash. 1902).

69 P. 732 (Benjamin Bank v. Doherty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gunther v. White
489 S.W.2d 529 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1973)
Castor v. Muramoto
125 P. 153 (Washington Supreme Court, 1912)
Benjamin Bank v. Doherty
84 P. 872 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Bank v. Doherty
79 P. 486 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)