Case ID: nj-eq_97/html/0017-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beaming, Y. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas D. McGlathery and Wife, complainants, v. Horace Paul Dorman et al., defendants.
    [Submitted December 3d, 1924.
    Determined December 12th, 1924.]
    1. Where a bond and mortgage were given for the same debt by residents of Pennsylvania on property in New Jersey, and after default the mortgage was foreclosed and sale made to the mortgagee under the foreclosure decree, and within six months after the sale the mortgagee entered judgment on the bond in Pennsylvania, by virtue of a warrant of attorney for confession of judgment accompanying the bond, and the mortgagor has paid the judgment, he may redeem the property in New Jersey within the statutory period.
    2. In the circumstances stated in the preceding head note the failure of the mortgagee to give notice of the proposed proceedings on the bond pursuant to P. L. 1907 p. 563; 3 Comp. 'Stat. p. 31/23, cannot deny to the mortgagor the right to redeem.
    3. Act of 18S0, page 256, as amended (3) Comp. Stat. p. 81/20 et seq.), relating to proceedings on bonds -and mortgages given for the same indebtedness, declared constitutional.
    On final hearing on bill to redeem real estate.
    'In this suit a mortgagor seeks to redeem under the provisions of the act of 1880, page 256, as amended. S Qomp. Stat. p. Sl/20 et seq. The defense is primarily based on th.e fact that the judgment, which was entered on the bond after a sale had been made under the foreclosure decree, was entered in the State of Pennsylvania, whereas our statute, authorizing redemption after a foreclosure sale, cannot be construed to contemplate a judgment entered on the bond in a sister state. The act authorizing redemption also is assailed as unconstitutional because of inadequacy of its title.
    .The facts are not in dispute. The parties all reside in Pennsylvania. The bond and mortgae were given for the same debt. TÍhe mortgaged premises are in New Jersey. The bond and mortgage were executed and delivered in this state. After default the mortgage was foreclosed and sale was made to the mortgagee under the foreclosure decree. Within six months after the sale the mortgagee entered judgment on the bond in Philadelphia by virtue of the warrant of attorney for confession of judgment accompanying the bond. Execution Was then issued on the judgment and levy made on Philadelphia property of the mortgagor. The mortgagor has paid the judgment and now seeks to redeem. The present bill to redeem has been filed within the statutory period. No notice of the proposed judgment was filed by the mortgagee pursuant to the act of 1907, page 563. 3 Gomp. Siat. p. 3J£3.
    
    
      Mr. Joseph 8. Low, with whom appeared Mr. D. Trueman Stackhouse, for the complainants.
    
      Mr. Lewis Slarr, for the defendants.
   Beaming, Y. C.

Briefly stated, our statute provides that when a bond and mortgage are given for the same debt, the effect of entering judgment on the bond, after the foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of the mortgaged premises, for any balance of tlie debt, shall be to open the foreclosure decree and sale, and shall entitle the mortgagor to redeem. The act does not by its terms restrict the effect of entering a judgment on the bond to judgments which shall be entered on the bond in this state. Defendants seek to■ read that restriction into- the act by construction. The argument is that legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to the limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction; hence, the language of the act to the effect that the entry of a judgment on the bond for any balance of the debt, after a foreclosure decree and sale, shall be operative to open the foreclosure decree and sale and permit the mortgagor to redeem, is to be understood as having reference only to a judgment entered in this state. This contention cannot prevail. The general purpose and design of the legislation is to extend to a mortgagor the right to redeem after foreclosure sale, should a mortgagee, after sale, proceed upon the bond for any part of the debt. To read into the act a. provision that this protection of the mortgagor shall obtain only when the .subsequent proceedings on the bond are taken in this state is to defeat the very purpose of the act. It necessarily follows that any recognized presumption that may exist against extra-territorial legislation as a basis for a limitation by statutory construction is overcome by the obvious purpose of the legislation; indeed, the presumption cannot be said to arise in any case in which reasonable and appropriate extra-territorial operation or force of a statute can be said to be inferred from its obvious purpose. Nor has any case been brought to my attention in which the presumption against extra-territorial force of legislation has been made the basis of a limitation of the language of the act by statutory construction, unless the legislation, if given extra-territorial force, will be found to have entered a field of improbable or unreasonable legislative intent or of doubtful right. The statute here in question pursues the legitimate function of prescribing rights and remedies touching property in this state; it in no way undertakes to control judgments entered in another state; the entry of such a judgment after sale is m'erely an event operative to revive the right of redemption. Such a provision is not only a proper and reasonable exercise of legislative right, but is necessary to effectuate the beneficial purposes of the act. In Hutchinson v. Ward, 192 N. Y. 375, this provision of our act is regarded as applying to actions brought on the bond in New Jersey or elsewhere.

The circumstance that defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the supplemental act of 1907 (3 Comp. Stat. p. 3423), can afford them no additional rights. The judgment entered against complainant herein in Philadelphia was enforceable there, and was enforced there against property of complainant herein in that city.

Nor am I prepared to hold that it can be said to be clear that the act here in question is unconstitutional because of inadequacy of its title. The title to the act gives notice that its provisions regulate “proceedings on bonds and mortgages given for the same indebtedness and the foreclosure and sale of mortgaged premises thereunder.” This, I think, adequately discloses the scope of the act.

A reference will be made to a master for an accounting, and a decree of redemption will be entered upon payment of the balance found due.