The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-12-12
IT WORRIES THEM
SUPREME COURT DECISION PRE-
CIPITATES A 1ANGLE

Lawyers are in Trouble Over It-sev-
eraI People are Taking Advantage of
the Decision and are Redeeming Prop
erty Sold Under Mortgages-It is Ex-
pected it will be Carried to Washington
The decision recently made by the Sd
preme court of the state holding good
the mortgage redemption law of 1888 is
The only topic of discussion among the
lawyers Of Wichita, some Of whom sus-
tain the court while greater number
OF them assert that the decision is bad
law. The various opinions are colored
a little perhaps according to conditions.
The Populists, for instance, are in favor
Of the decision with few exceptions,
and they are men whose interests lie
the other way through being attorneys
for firms or individuals that have fore
closed or have forecloSed themselves
under the old law.
There are a great many people in
Wichita who will take advantage of the
decision TO redeem their property by
payment Of the amount il sold Tor. In
one or two instances property worth
thousands of dollars sold mere for a
ers will now present those few hundred
dollars and according TO the decision
of the supreme court they are entitled
TO clear deed TO ii.
Yesterday when an Eagle reporter
visited ?. a. ROhrbaugh he found that
gentleman running his fingers vigorous
ly through his hair. He was in difficult
" over the confirmation of some sales
and cogitating over the decision which
the supreme court held that the mort
gage redemption law of 1893 was appli-
cable TO mortgages made prior to the
enactment Of the law.
What in your opinion will be the ef-
feet Of this decision on the business Of
the state?" the reporter asked.
Mr.. ROhrbaugh replied: 1T is i'm
possible to measure the reach of this
decision at this time. 1t must produce
so many complications affecting titles,
and transactions with reference to
foreclosures, and must so handicap the
courts Of the states, which informally,
held the law not to apply, and ordered
foreclosure sales and deeds made in
pursuance thereof. That if all these de-
crees and orders Of the courts are to be
held now as void, and Of no effect, who
Is safe in all these transactions, and
the worst and most dangerous feature
OF the United States has by line Of de-
cisions held exactly the reverse of our
supreme court, and the United States
decision is the law on this matter"
Can such a case as this be taken
from our supreme court to the supreme
court of the United States?"
Certainly it can, and there is the
danger if people should determine to
follow our court on this matter some
one will sooner or later take the matter
from this state to the United States su-
preme court, and then all their work
would be for naught, except TO produce
additional trouble The constitution OF
the United States provides, That no
state shall pass any law impairing the
obligation Of contracts This is simply
the old common law, and every lawyer
agrees that no law can be legally en-
acted by a state which in any manner
impairs THE obligation Of a contract
heretofore made. So long as the law
only effects the remedy to enforce the
contract it does not infringe upon the
contract or the constitution, and the
courts have gone very far in allowing
the remedy to be effected. For instance,
In the passing Of stay laws. Statutes of
limitation, and laws changing the
methods Of collecting debts, changing
these laws do not in any way destroy
the creditors security, or endanger his
debt, by releasing the debtor, etc, they
have been held constitutional"
rs 10 your opinion that the mortgage
law Of 1893 effected the contract or i'm
paired its obligation?"
Il do not believe the law was ever in
tended to apply to mortgages made
prior to its enactment; indeed Its au-
thor claims 1t was not, but If there be
an attempt to apply 1t to such con-
tracts, 1 do believe that it effects the
contract When men make contracts
they are presumed to know the law I'M
der which they contract and are held
TO know the law, by the courts, and if
at The time they make a mistake in the
law they must suffer the consequence
Of their mistake. but it is obviously I'M
fair to hold a man to know what the
legislature viii enact into law after
they have made their contract"
How viii it effect the sales of prop
erty heretofore made under the old
law?"
We'll, let us suppose a case. Here Is
n man who has $500 to loan. He
knows what law is now in force and
knows how TO provide for his protec-
ton, as well as the debtor. who also
under the old law for two years at 10
per cent interest and takes a mortgage
on real estate. The debt falls due and
S not paid. He at once puts to work
the court 10 foreclOse mis- mortgage I'M
der the law as he understands which
governs his transaction, and the prop
erty is duly advertised for sale after he
has waited the six months which was
required when he took his mortgage.
and no one appearing to bid on it he
bids $500 and the property is sold TO
him and the sheriff gives him deed as
DE should do under the law on his con-
tract He takes possession Of the prop
orty and sells il again to some one else. !
But in one year after this sale and after
he has his deed and has decided il away. !
the debtor comes in with the $500 and
It's interest and insists on redeeming
his property under the new law of 1888 I
The supreme court says he may do this |
and that all the legal proceedings 10Y
which he got title 10 this property are
void. The result OF all this is that the
creditor gets the $500 and its interest /
he must make good 10 the man 70 whom (
he sold. any damages he has suffered. /
end the debtor takes the property free /
from this debt OF $500. and may never 1
he worth cent over and above this one I.
property, which IL the creditor had T.
known the law. he would have bid more I
money for il in hopes Of getting some 4
thing out Of it All Of this trouble 4
grows out Of the fact that a man must 1