The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-02

! rules for public officers nor demand that
courts shall depart from the usual mode
fn enforcing their Gesrees. Under the
Pennsylvania decision OF course the
officers are not called upon 20 change
their proceedings, nor would they be in
| this state IL the courts hold thar the
benefit Of such proceedings may be
waived by stipulation
In New York case IL was held that
debtor cannot, when contracting
a debt. agree that exempt property may
be taken on execusion. This Is not in
point. however. because there the waiv-
er was as to property. being household
furniture. which was necessary for the
maintenance OF his family, and the
court expressly held that the exemption
vas based upon views of policy and hn-
manity. The exemption did no. merely
concern himself but others who stood
In need OF the shield OF the law. Such
ias as this is intended to protect the
debtor against bis own improyidence.
On the contrary. II has been uniformly
held In Iowa that notwithstanding the
mortgngor was entitled 10 possession
during the redemption period. pro-
visions in mortgages which deprive
mortgagors OF this right were upheld.
30 far as the statute OF this state Ia
concerned some OF the most eminent at
forneys-including, we believe, ex-
Chief Justice Hcyt-express the opin-
ion that all Il does is 10 give
the mortgagor or Judgment debtor
the right to have his property
appraised before IL is sold and TO
remain In possession thereof until the
time for redemption has expired There
Is nothing contained in the law, either
in express language or IN. it's general
scope which in any way prohibits the
interested party from contracting away
or waving such right, but on the con-
trary, il clearly appears from the act,
taken az a whole, that the rights are
conferred for the benefit OF the lndivid
ual and may be waived by him. Section
10 OF the act is referred to as expressly
providing that the debtor may waive
the years delay by requesting that the
sale be made al once, thus showing that
the right is that OF the individual and
not of the public.
This subject was reviewed by Harold
Preston In an address before the Bar
Association The opinion he expressed
in that paper has been SO amply justi-
fed by the decision of the supreme
court as TO the unconstitutionality of
active, that his conclusions upon other
points have an exceptional interest. The
question was asked in that paper
whether We are still bound to follow out
the policy OF the new law, and whether
X was possible, IL the contracting par
ties SO desired. to stipulate the terms in
the mortgage, and whether in such an
event the contract would be enforced.
In referring TO a well-known Virginia
may by express contract stipulate that
neither existing nor anticipated legisla-
ton shall In anywise affect or control
their agreement, and IL such a stipula-
ton Is embodied in the contract. the
terms OF the contract will furnish the
solo mode of enforcement II has also
been held to be competent for parties
TO contract TO waive the benefit of an
existing law staying execution, and that
a contract so expressed would be en-
forced by the courts. Decisions are TO
be found IN Pennsylvania Louisiona
and Indiana which seem to establish
The faes that a statute requiring all
property sold Under execution first to
be appraised and bring a certain PEI
certsge o. the appraised value. does not
deprive the debtor OF the right to make
by his contract "a valid waiver of the
benefit u such appraisement.
The supreme court OF this state viii
undoubtedly be called upon 10 decide
this question, and Il would be presump-
.uous 20 do more than indicate the two
lines Of thought upon which courts
have acted In the past. and so afford the
general reader an opportunity OF form
Ing an crinion as 10 which would be
more beneficial rs matter OF public
policy TO this state.