Iowa territorial gazette and advertiser. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa Territory [Iowa]) 1840-1846, 1843-03-25

the provision OF the Law OK this State en-.
titles. IAN act regulating the title ofpro
crty,'' approved 9Th February, 1871
il the case come within the provisions O
that law; and my two or three house
holders selected under the law agreeing
may make the valuation Of the premises
required.
Before the sale Of any real estate or
execution the Marshal shall give notice
thirty days in newspaper pub!ishe! il
the county whore the land lies: and i
there be 10 paper Yai,.i@hel III the coln
~, tlcn the notice Shall lie given thirl.
days before the sale, by notices as til,
statute requires. The Court adop, ,hs
9Th section of the &c, Of Till, STATE te
amend the act concerning judgment, &c
passed 18th Of February, 1911, w!.c!
regulates tho sale OF mortgage premises
&c. except where special direction shall
be given in he decree Of sale"
After these rules were adopted, that is
to say, at Decembe: Term, 1911, the bill!
filed by bronson as herein before men
toned came on sor iii:al hearing in the
Circul, Court; and ,hcreupon The com
plalnant moved the Court for final d.,
cree O, strict foreclosure OF said mortgage
or that TIC rostgagsd premises should lie
sold TO the highest bidder, witIou, Icing
suffice! TO said rule and the act referred
to. This motion was resisted on part oil
defendants; who moved that the decree
should direct the sale according to said
rule and act
And tho Judges being opposed in OPT.
nion GU the following points, to Wit
LIST. Whether the decree in this case
should be SO entered as 10 direct the sale
OF the said mortgased premises according
10 SAID statute OF the Sta,e of I!liao S
sS.boyc mentioned; or whether the same
ip,emises should be sold at public auction,
/. to the highest bidder, without regard TO
the said law.
end. Whether The duc.ce in this case
shall Or shall not direct the sale OF the
mortea1ed premises, without being first
valued by ,.,rec IlouseAoders, and with
out requiring two thirds Of the amount;
vi the said valuation to be bid ac-
cosd!ng to the said act OF the State OF
Illinois.
gage in this case do or do not require it
20 be expected lso:n tic operation Of the
rule above rccitcl. On motion OF the
complainant, it was ordered and directed
that lhiscause, with said points, be ccrti-
fled to the Supreme Court, IN pursuance
Of the act OF Congress.
And IT Is upon these questions, thus
certified, that the case is sow before Us;
and the 9th section of the act OF Feb
ruary 10Th, and the entire act of Feb
faary 27lh, are sci forth at large in the
record, rs the laws referred 10 in the
above mentioned rules Of tho Circuit
C. urt.
!'hc Case has been submitted 10 tic
Court for dec!s! n By Il written agree
ment between the counsel ON both sides.
on The pert OF the complainant ii printed
argument has been filed, but none has
been ot.ercd OH telal! oil tie defendant.
KS TIC case involves Il constitutions! cues
ton OF srea, Importance, VIC should have
preferred tall argumen, at tho Bar
~! the parties are entitled by the rules
'ol the Court 10 bring j. before US ia the
manner they have adopted; and i, being
our duty TO decide the questions cerfltie1
10 US by the Circuit Court. we have be-
slowed uron TIE subject ,Lc CAREFUL ana
deliberate consideration whca its innor
.ance demands.
Upon Ike points certified, the question
IS whether the laws Of Illinois Of the 18th
and the 9Th OF February 1871, come
wi!hln that clause OF the 18th Section of
The lst Article of the Constitution Of the
United States which prohibits state from
passing law impaisag the obligation Ssz
contracts.
The laws Of a state regulating The pro-
cess OIL! It's courts and prescribing the
manner III which it shall be executed, OF
course do net J.ni tie courts Of the Uni
ted states, whose proceeding must be 90
Ncfned by the acts Of Congress. The
tcts Of 1899, however, adopted the pro
cess used IN the State courts, as it STOOD
IN 1883; and since then, the act Of 1895
on the same subject. has been passed.;
and the third section Of this la.g directs.
tho hnal process issued in judgments, ana
DEGREES IN any OF the courts Of the United
States, and the proceedings lhercupon.
shall pc the same except their style in
each State respectively as were then used
IN the courts OF such State; aud author.
'ses the courts OF the United States, il
they see fit in their discretion by rules
OF court SO Ear TO alter final process. as 10
conform the same 10 any change which
might afterwards be adopted, by the Lc-
g'slatuse Of The respective States Tor the
State courts. Any &C, OF State Lenis-
-lature, therefore, in relation TO final pro-
cess, passed since 1923, are of no force
IN the courts OF he United States, unless
adopted by rules OF court accordin. TO the
provisions OF this act Of Congress. And
although such State laws may have been
adopted, yet they arc imperative and Of
no force II ia conflict with tho cons,tu
'lon or an act q! Congress.
AS concerns the obligations Of the con
tract upon which this controversy has
arisen, they depend upon the laws Of Iii
nols as they stood ut the time the mort
gage deed was executed. The money
duo was indeed to be paid in New York.
But the mortgage given to secure the debt.
was made in Illinois, for real property
situated in that stale,. and the rights
which the mortgage acquired in the pre-
misses depended iI,,nn tho lnxv. nc .ho,