The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-01-09
MORTGAGES AND ASSESSMENTS.

The supreme court has just rendered
decision which is Of considerable inn
portance TO property owners generally,
and settles some questions which
have caused no little trouble. One of
the principal results will be to insure
the purchase of property sold by city
for delinquent street grade assess
ments. The doubt about the title in
such cases has made buyers timid. and
the city has always had to bid such
property in.
In March, 1889, l.. NJ. Robbins and
Eliza ]. Robbins, husband and wife,
executed a mortgage on a certain piece
OF property in Seattle to Thomas S.
krutz. A month later the city passed
an ordinance for the grading of the
street on which the property abutted.
The city began an action to foreclose.
but did not make the mortgage party
defendant. After foreclosure the
property was offered for sale and bid
in by the city, but subsequently sold
10 Mary f. Gardner, and, no redemp-
ton being made, she received a sheriff s
deed.
In 1894 the mortgage commenced IN
action to foreclose his mortgage, but
did not make either the city nor Mary
E. Gardner a defendant. A decree Of
foreclosure was obtained, the property
offered for sale. bid in. and in June,
1897. he received a sherif's deed.
Mary Gardner. through her grantee.
resisted an attempt to take posses
sion. and the matter was referred 10
the courts. The mortgage commended
that he should have been made a party
defendant in the proceedings to fore
close the assessment lien. and that they
were void because he was not He re-
lied Upon the section of the charter
which requires that all parties having
an interest IN property subject to an
action on account of delinquency shall
be made parties. 1t has been usual to
make mortgages parties under this
general clause, so as to be on the safe
side. but the supreme court now holds
that. although it would undoubtedly
be proper and desirable that the holder
of a mortgage should be made defend
ant in an action TO foreclose an assess
ment lien, yet il was not the intention
he should be made party TO the pro-
ceedings. Briefly, the conclusion OF the
court seems TO be that. although a
mortgage was not included, the fore
closure would be effectual against the
owner of the premises, and that the
holder Of the mortgage would be en-
titled TO redeem.
Incidentally il was also laid down
in the case that the bidding in by the
city under such a sale was not such a
purchase as would make the city liable
10 the warrant holder for the amount.
put NdS iiteTTtN dL act OF nOIQinE tle
property In trust.
Since the court has held that I. s.
proper to make mortga gees parties. il is
10 be hoped that all municipalities will
adopt that plan. II IS true that a mort
gage is a junior lien to an assessment,
but priority is usually determined by
date. aud where a mortgage advances
money upon property against which
there is no such lien il would seem only
just 10 give him a chance TO protect
himself against a negligent property
owner by including Kim in the action
Street assessments are not like taxes
in the respect that they are not periods
cat Every man dealing In property
knows that an annual tax Is imposed
He has not the same means Of knowing
when street assessment is ordered or
becomes delinquent. The object Of this
would be not 10 give him an oppor-
tanity to come In after the work vas
done and object "a payment. but to az.
ford him "a chance to avoid penalties
and the running ~ interest. with A nos
s.h!e sale under foreclosure.