The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1865-08-12
For The Union.
Tha Mortgage Act of 1928.


In the year 1926, the Legislature of &larylstisA
passed an Act giving more speedy remedy tof
the sale Of Mortgaged propesly situated inr Tie
leiN or xcosIifty.o BallilhOrA. - IN "a M
THIS law was freqleH Il " akaiIsd Of aain BdtIi4
Empre county land Remained ID full force uIlul
the Code was adoptk by the Legislature on Tie
el2th January I860 Ia die act 6f the Legiblas
K. a1 6 s gca If a. del js ha3 80!
tute for all tie Public General Laws, Tand Vhe
Public Local Laws, heretofore passed by the
Legislature of Maryland"
A cause involving proceedings under the mort
gage Act of 1926, has recently been decided by
the Judge of our Circuit Court, of considerable
importance to, the people of Baltimore county,
and parhedlafH AoltAose-and there are many
such-whose property has been sold nnder this
Act since january, 1860. 1900 s--'---------
In the case refereed to Of Grubb u.s. Manning,
Judge Emory decides that the Act Of 1926 was
repealed by the Code on its adoption by the Leg
isature. Consequently all the sales which have
been made under its pretended sanction and au-
thority are null and void The Court had no
jurisdiction whatever to confirm such sales and
the purchasers under them got no valid title.
The portion of the opinion covering this
branch Of the case, is as follows: 81 could not
ratify the sale even to that extent, because, the
sale was not made according to the requirements
| of the Code, which in my opinion is applicable
| to all cases whether the mortgages, were made
before or after its adoption. While the Legisla-
| tive authority cannot impair the, obligations of
contracts, itmust be conceded that it can modify
and change the remedies for enforcing them--ex-
| listing at the time when they wereOentered into
or even deprive the parties of existing remedies
altogether, provided some sufficient remedy be
| ef.' wGLTIIAU
The right of the Legislature to deal at pleasure
with the remedy is Indoubted. In former
newspaper report of the decision in this case of
Grubh Manning, it was stated that this deci-
sion, changed the practice in reference TO such pro-
ceediagss This language does not accurately ex-
| press the force Of the decision-it does great
| deal more than change the practice The Act of
| 1926 applied to all cases of mortgages in Balti-
| more county, whether referred To- in the mort
| gage or not, but the Code embraces only those
| cases in which clause is inserted in the mort
| gage, authorizing the mortgage or any other
| person named therein to sell the nortgaged
! premises, and since the adoption of the Code no
| er pdrte proceeding for sale in summary way,
| can be had or taken where the mortgage does
not contain this special clause authorizing
the sale, and specifying the person to make such
SALE. See Sect. 5, art. 81. And the Court de-
| cides that every sale and the authority to make
| it, must be iii conformity with the Code, wheth-
er the mortgage was made before Or after its
adoption in January 1860. r.---,-5-.->
This decision renders worthless an the letters
which have been taken under these illegal pro-
| ceedings of foreclosure under the act3Of 1926
since the adoption of the Code.
| And it is much to be regretted that these cases
have been very numerous. Those whose proper
ty has teen thus illegally sold, as well those
who have as purchasers paid their money and
taken these pretended letters under such sales,
are called on to consider their respective posi-
tons under the law as laid down by our Court.
1t is especially important also that those who
hereafter purchase real estate in the county, be
careful to see whether title sought to be trans
ferred has been acquired under the mortgage Act
of 1926, or by proceedings since the adoption OF
| the Code. eFassa uxuFs1
The accurate bearing and large experience ac-
| qnired through professional training Of nearly
thirty years of the Judge making this decision,
sustained as heis by parallel case from Caro-
line county, decided BY the Court of Appeal,
| wide Hubbard VS.. Jarrett, January Tth, 1865, J
entitle it to great weight and consideration
There were other points decided by the Court
in the case but they are of no public interest
and therefore are not noticed. As the present
writer has repeatedly raised his voice in warning
to those of our county whom he believed were in
considerably using this Act of 1926, after its re-
peal by the Code, he now feels no hesitation in
giving publicity 10 this decision of the Court,
which declares that all sales made underits pro-
visions since the adoption of the Code, are null
and void. I7yrr,-r., rrf~1~B~ B. c., B.
BALTIC. Co. Aug. 9th 1865. q = "a l f'1A .