People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-12-12

tne purchaser or assignee tnere01 snail
have the same right Of redemption as
the defendant owner; but the right Of
redemption shall not be subject 10
levy or sale on execution.
SEC. 10. The holder OF the legal
title at the time Of issuance Of exc
cution or order OF sale shall have the
same right Of redemption upon the
same terms and conditions as the de-
fendant In execution, and also shall
be entitled to the possession Of the
property the same as the defendant
in execution, as hereinbefore provided.
SEC. q. Real estate once sold upon
order Of sale, special execution or gen
eral execution shall not again be liable
for sale for any balance due upou the
judgment or decree under which the
same is sold, or any judgment or lien
inferior thereto, and under which the
holder Of such lien had a right to re-
deem within the fifteen months here
inbefore provided for.
SEC. "a. The holder Of the certifl.
cate Of purchase shall be entitled to
prevent any waste or destruction Of
the premises purchased, and for that
purpose the court, on proper showing,
may issue an Injunction; or, when re-
quired to protect said premises against
waste, appoint and place in charge
thereof a receiver, who shall hold
said premises until such time as the
purchaser is entitled to a deed, and
shall be entitled to rent, control and
manage the same, but the income
during said time, except what is nee
essary to keep up repairs and prevent
waste, shall 90 to the owner or defend
ant 10 execution, or the owner Of its
legal title.
Immediately upon the passage of
this law, the legal question was raised
that it was unconstitutional so far as
it purpOrted to effect mortgages made
prior to its enactment, and the April
decision Of the supreme court sus-
tanned this contention and declared
the law unconstitutional so far as 1t
related TO existing contracts. But
this last Saturdays decision holds
that this law is valid as to all mort
cages and contracts, no matter wheth-
er they were made prior to or after
the passage Of the law. Chief JUS
tice Martin, sustained by Justice AL
len so hold; Justice Johnson dissents.
This decision is Of the utmost i'm.
portance, not only to mortgagors and
loan-holders, but also to the present
holders Of sheriff's titles acquired
since the law became effective. All
the courts have been proceeding upon
the theory that this law did not effect
pre- existing contracts. Scores OF
sheriff's deeds have been made right
here 10 Sumner county In violation OF
the terms Of this statute. The su-
preme court Of the state had said that
this law did not apply in such cases.
In many instances these lands have
been sold to third parties. This last
decision Of the supreme court, how
ever, knocks the foundation from un.
der all such titles and they crumble
into dust and in all cases In which the
eighteen months has not elapsed
since the day Of sale the land may
still be redeemed under the provisions
Of this law. This same condition Of
affairs exists In all the older counties
OF the state, 1t will almost necessa.
rily lead to much confusion, litigation
and loss to those who have invested
In such titles,
This decision is also very important
as TO future foreclosure sales In that
1t brings within the scope Of this law
all cases, no matter whether the
mortgage was made before or after its
passage. 1t compels the loan holder
to bid for the land all he considers 1t
worth. The mortgagor may redeem
his land by paying the amount 10
which 1t was sold, regardless Of the
amount Of the judgment and he can
hold it free from every debt that was
lien upon it at the date Of the sale
1t is very seldom in the jarispru-
dence Of any state that a final decision
Of It's court Of last resort, involving as
vast and important interests as the
April decision Of our supreme court
did, is reversed. 1t is very seldom
that a single decision Of a court effects
directly and Immediately such a large
percentage Of the people Of the state
as this one does.
There is another feature Of this
same law of 1893 that seems to have
been very generally overlooked even
by lawyers. In the absence Of statu-
tory law on the subject, the man who
claims title under a sheriff's deed
must afiirmatively show that all the
proceedings upon which it is based are
regular and valid. Nearly II notquite
all states have passed laws making