The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-01-18
DALE WILL DECIDE
IMPORTANT POINTS ARGUEDUNDER
THE REDEMPTION Law.

hnetner an Order OF court C8o De facaIeu
at a Subsequent Term is the Question
Motions Argued to Bring Orders Made
Between the rwo Supreme Court Lee
sions Within the Benefit of the Latter
Decision-Twenty Thousand Cases In
volved-Deeision Important to the State
at Large-Bar About Equally Divided.
Yesterday was the day set apart by
Judge Dale 70 hear arguments on the
motion filed as a result Of the recent Ge-
cision Of the supreme court sustaining
the redemption law OF 1898. The mo-
tons were numerous. and as each mo-
tion involved two or more attorneys,
nearly every member of the bar was in
the court room when court opened An
other noticeable fact was that the law
yers were about divided in their opin-
ions on the final outcome of the cases.
Those Immediately interested were there
with carefully prepared briefs and for
Gnidable array of law books, while 9TH
ens were there to profit by the argu-
ments and incidentally take few notes
Tor future reference. Among the latter
were a number of attorneys from the
surrounding counties, where this ques-i
ton has not been brought up.
The cause Of this array Of legal talent
was that in 1898 law was passed by the
legislature which gave to the owner Of
property sold under mortgage foreclos-
ure the right to redeem from such sale
at any time within eighteen months
When Judge Horton was on the supreme
bench a case was decided which held
that this law did not apply to contracts
made before the passage of the law.
That case was granted a rehearing, but
before it came up Judge Horton resign
ed and Judge Martin went on the bench
in his stead. On the rehearing Judge
Martin held that the law affected all
contracts, whether made before or after
the law was passed. Since that decision,
motion after motion has been filed to
vacate or modify the orders of confirm
alton made and entered since the origi-
nal passage of the law but before the
late ruling. Some of these cOnfirma-
tiOns were made more than a year
ago and some quite recetly. Some de-
sired the sale set aside and other asked
that a certificate of purchase be given
instead of a deed, and various other
combinations.
Judge Dale announced on taking his
seat that he was ready to hear all the
arguments to be made, and that the at
tOrneys would all have an opportunity
to present their views on the matter.
The openong argument was made by
Judge Ruggles, who claimed ma. ne
court had the power to modify the or
ders of confirmation and to make them
provide for the issuance of certificates
of purchase instead of deeds which had
heretofore been executed. He stated the
law according to his view in a very
fOrcible manner and entered at length
into the discussion of the law and its
intent.
He was followed by Judge Wall, Of
the firm of Wall & Brooks, who are
largely interested in this and other
counties on the opposite side Of the queS-
ton. He delivered a fine argument in
his usual convincing way and emphati-
cally declared that under the statute
after the term had expired, the court
had no power to modify or vacate the
orders of confirmation made by Judge
Reed at former terms of court. He fur
Their contended that the judgments rem
dered were not void if they did not al
low the redemption period but merely
erroneous. The law provides that void
judgments may be set aside a any time,
while erroneous judgments can only be
set aside at the term which they were
entered, or at any subsequent term, II a
motion for a new trial was filed within
the time fixed by statute. He entered
at length into the distinction Of irregu-
lar, erroneous and void judgments and
cited numerous authorities to support
his contentious. Judge Dale showed
marked interest in the subject and pro-
pounded many questions to the counsel,
touching many of the intricate points
and difficult propositions.
Judge Wall was followed by A. Z.
Helm; Judge Stra ton and w. i. Bailey,
who continued the arguments as seen
from their standpoinJs, ana maue se,-
eral new phases appear which might
have been overlooked but for them.
From the arguments there seems 10 be
no question but that the court has the
right at the time the sale is confirmed 10
allow the eighteen months redemption
period Notwithstanding the original de-
cree, but q sale cannot be modified but
must be set aside in toto or be confirmed
It seemed equally clear that where a
year has expired from the order of con-
firmation the parties so desiring may
have a review in the supreme court, so
long as they did not consent TO the con-
firmation in the lower court.
The law of 1893 was the sole absorb
ing topic of conversation and the d.
Versity of opinoin is worse than that
created by the income tax. Many law
yerS stated on their professional repu-
tation that they thought the law as con-
strued by the late decision TO be wnol-
" unconstitutional. Equally as many
declared for the law and upheld the su-
preme court, while all are anxious for
the case TO be passed on by the supreme
court of the United States.
1t is said that since the passage Of the
law OF 1893 that over 10000 judgments
have been rendered in this state in
which the equity Of redemption was cut
off
Judge Dale's decision will be awaited
with interest, not only by the people Of
this county. but by the state at large.
He viii continue hearing the arguments
over tomorrow and Will hand down his
-, <,rF