The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-09-28
A GUARANTEE
SEATTLE. TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER =
TxaDISa THE M0RTcicE LAW.

correspondent In yesterdays Post
Intelligence, commenting upon the
mortgage Law OF this state. asks the fol-
lowing question.
'afay aot a m0rtgsgor. Tor the eonsid-
Grafton therein stated. expressly waive,
on the face Of hls mortgage. any sup
posed benefit thar he may have under the
act Of 1881. and make his contract under
the i&ws Of the state Of Washington as
they existed anterior 70 said dateg The
courts have decided that a party may. for
n consideration waive any benefit under
ar act Of assembly passed for his benefit
as. for instance. party may agree not 20
take the benefit Of a stay law. or al act
exemptlng property from levy Or sale
under an execution. II such a waiver
was Incorporated In the mortgages 10 be
made in tisis state. could not the evil Of
the act Of 1897 as between n1ortgagor and
mortgage, De gotten rid Of. and would
not such n waiver render the act of 1887
comparatively harmless. except SO far a.
IL IL a menace to the prosperity or the
slater
We doubt II this could be done In the
way suggested. Although there are
many cases In which waiver may be
made even OF the benefit of a statute.
our law provides no other equity of
redemption than that conferred by the
years possession after the decree. Nor
could the mortgagor waive in the mort
gage the conditions as to the manner
OF SALE IL Is rather delicate point to
be decided by lay authority. but We
Will hazard the opinion that the only
right the mortgagor could waive would
b. the right 10 The increment during the
year between the order and the sale.
This is on the general principle that
one may waive any right accruing to
himself personally; that Is. matter
In which the public is not interested
or policy Of the law Is not infringed
Thus one may waive the right OF home
stead or the right OF dover, but the
courts OF this country. as we'll as OF
England. are very decided upon the
point. and at least SO far back as 1858
It was held that no agreement in a
mortgage can make IL irredeemable.
Justice Field has laid II down
- established doctrine than an equity
Of redemption Is inseparably connected
with a mortgage. This right cannot be
waived or abandoned by any stipula-
ton Of the parties made az the time,
even II embodied in the mortgage
This is the law OF the United States. and
wherever a state law provides a period
within which that right may be exer-
sised. this principle viii be vigorously
applied by the interpreting courts.
II Is very probable that the courts
would view with suspicion any con-
temporaneous document having for its
object the Illustration Of the purpose of
the law. There is. for instance. moth
ing In the policy Of the law which for
bids the transfer Of the debtors inter
ct TO the creditor. but il must be ut
subsequent date and as the result III
new consideration. Even then the
court would scrutinlEe the transaction
very closely. especially, as one decision
pats Il. where the creditor has shown
himself ready and skiliful to take adj
vantage Of the necessities of the bor-
rover" Indeed. the equity is based en-
tirely on public policy and for the pur-
pose OF protecting the borrower against
himself. just as The law steps In and
voids usury. notwithstanding the con
tract II Is therefore entirely out OF the
question that the waiver should be in
the form proposed by Cur correspond
snt
II Is also out Of The question that the
nortgaEor could waive the right Of ap-
praisement It is an everyday trans
action. subsequently to mortgage. TO
execute = decd az CONVEYANCE. ana nv
such an act the mortgagor could no
soabt avoid the appraisement. but IL
nus, ac by q subsequent aet and a new
consideration The Law pvescrlbes A
method Of foreclosure. and tie mort
wagur cannot waive that Il Is aot n
transaction between gha parties. bat be-
tween the parties and The state 4
court would poJ order sale hv any
other PROCESS than TIA, prescribed BY
THE law as the proc sdgre in foreclos-
ures
The only stipulation. therefore which
woula seem "a BE- & any value is that
foregoing the rigAt 90 the increment
turing the period which covers the
eQui;y-and wiih il perhaps ,he right
~ possession.
We confess. however. that we 30 not
have the apprehension evidently eater
tainei by cur ocrres pendent as To tie
extent q the INJURY TIE law win in-
fiet upon this state nos that il Is De-