The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-12-03
IIIIERS THINK It STRANGE.
arrpos or sUPRENE COURT IN ASK
nc Outside OPINIONS.
-. case waiting for Decislon Ia
Selves the Validity Of Pepullst
snvp-Premlsssry Notes, Def
e1eney Judgment aaa Mortgage.

- supreme court OF this state has not
- anything Ia recent years that has
senafed more of . stir among the men,
~ 81 the legal profession than the order
rnich II made at Olympia a few days ago
=, ~ ease OF Dennis We. Moses. from King
ecrsfy. In which 1t called upon three pri-
-, iavyers to express their views upon
- leeal questions involved. There are sew
- rare Instances where supreme courts
go called In outside aid. but the action
~ ihe washington court has created none
e - talk.
10y member Of the King county bar
- Aaeeussed the matter. A few think
~ the court did the proper thing. and
$500 ny that II was most unwise thing.
- questions involve the validity Of al
- vicious legislation by the last Popu-
~ legislature. Many OF the best law
- Of the King county bar. while admit
- that other courts have received out
~ snaistance In rendering big decisions,
- here Is no reason why the Washington
sSnsrrme court should have sought aid I'm
~ nfesent case. They insist that the
i1rni questions are easy ones TO answer
- require no great legal talent. One
~ralauatton for the action OF the court has
- offered IN the suggestion that the
uneea1e court. Knowing that the laws In
vslyed are invalid, did not care to say so
vfthout having some Of the Populist law
~ express the same views. and in that
IA escape the charge that the laws were
5leclarsd Invalid because they are the work
n Populist legislature.
4 Il d A admitted fact that the decision
,ukieh the court viii render In the case
m sottie the validity or invaiidity of sew
n q the Populist laws. One Of these
~ provides that promissory notes may
ri naid IA any legal currency. Another
= i&at known a. the deficiency judgment
49, and the third and most important
felatae to the appraisal OF mortgaged prop
s ser4y. and Involves the question. has a
noefeagse the power to waive q statutory
psesipion made for his benefit?
IaAse laws were ali passed by the re-
esos PopuIlst legislature. After they had
Aeeams laws. J. H. Dennis who is now in
AlnGka, Ioaned l. r. Moses. a lawyer OF
d eisy. 81 800. taking a mortgage on GER
IA raj estate. 1t was provided In the
neetuse that the note secured by II
b6aN b paid IN gold coin OF the United
ototes: that all benefits Of the appraise-
not laws Of this state were waived by
Neees: that In case the note was not paid
II whole or any part OF the mortgaged
Itnp1gU should be sold forthwith withou;
IN appraiement whatever and without
waiting the one year provided by statute:
tat u purchaser should have possession
Il the property during the period OF re-
deuption. and that, II necessary. de-
6dency Judgment could be taken to salts
q any remaining debt growing out of the
nose, : nv against the taking OF such de-
sleiency Judgment to the contrary notwith-
efandins.
ne nots fell due. was not paid, Dennis
sud and asked the court to compel Moses
a ahado BY the terms of his contract
Judoe Jacobs. Of the superior court. re-
5satA he requests Of the plaintiff. and the
hitter appealed to the supreme court for
The desired relief.
II 4 the legal questions involved In this
case that the supreme court has been
called On to decide. and which II has asked
outside lawyers 70 give their views on.
Dennis lawyers attack the validity OF the
state NV which Says that the note may
be paid IN any legal currency. also the law
which says that there shall be no de-
hciency judsmsnt. They do not say that
the law Of 1881 providing for appraisement
OF property 10 Illegal. but they do insist
that Moses had legal right to waive All
Of its provisions.
counscel for Dennis. In their brief. In
speaking Of this last law. say: "All the
statute IN question does Is TO give the
mofteagor or judgment debtor the right
hsse MS property appraised before IL
sold, and 10 remain in possession of It
uata the time for redemption has expired.
Iasfe h nothing therein either In express
hnxuase or general scope which In any
respect prohibits the interested party fron.
confl1et!ng away or waving such right.
O. fhe contrary. Il clearly appears from
sae act taken as whole, that the rights
an conferred for the benefit OF the tn
mvauai and may be waived by him. IT
follows that before the right TO so contract
can b rlghtfully denied. Il must af-
Rfmatively appear that to do so Is express
prohibited or Is In contravention to pub
Ef policy"
"a view Of the fact that the supreme
court has given the outside lawyers who
trs 70 express their views OF the aues-
ucns involved until January l. II is TO be
pfesumed that no decision In the case is
@ b looked for until some time after the
new year has been launched.