The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-02-16

Ii was said IN that case that the sale must
re paS- roned and we think correctly
While section Is OF the act expressly re-
paass sections 81 10 n Vol II or the
Code relating 70 redemption. ara does not
by express declaration repeal other laws
III e1a1sct with the act. and although re-
peals by implication are not favored u
nevertheless follows that conflicting prior
laws must yield TO later ones. and f1e-e
would be conflict here as &c the time Tor
redemption - an Immediate sale could De
had an appraisernenr Being necessary
Furthermore IL IS Objectionable 70 have a
sale = year or 50 before title can De pass
ed. This has been demonstrated uhasf
rricr laws. and these are 20 ne ccnaa-
es-ed in cons rsaing remedial s,atut-s Con-
sequentiy in case % mortgages and of1er
specific Hens. no levy being reduiTt1 tns
special execution o. ORDER OF safe snonio
not issue until the expiration OF one year
from, The ts~na az tn. rendition OF the de-
cree or II Issued tHe sale should no1 pc
had until year has expired. tas sam a.
in case OF an execution upon an oFnih1Is
Judgment, to carry out the Sili-.- ana pro
Visions az tra act The st3nuiations IN
this mortgage relating 10 immediate pos,
session and right 10 rsnts ana pfon,s ~.
be- considered later. We nave fAaAoasi~u
all the authorities cited and do not thinS
the appraisement can be waived IN the N
S,rExneut Itself After default, wheh 1ne
situation becomes fixed the act permits the
debtor TO waive a further aDpEaisernen.
upon notice given OF the estimation on
value By the judgment creator. IRIS
would initiate against constituting the set
20 permit a waiver otherwise. or until &C.
fault THE form would not be material.
The discussion OF the rents and pronts pro-
vision viii have bearing upon this oues-
prevent the sacrifice OF property IL IL
were not fer me provision authorizing q
sa( FOR the amount OF the debt. II mish,
be q question. at least. whether the acs
could stand where IL might prevent re-
covery at all by requiring the outlay or
payment Of larger sum by the creditor.
in addition 70 his debt. in order TO have a
sale or enforce collection. In the cases ex-
arnined IL is sufficient to say that we have
found none where such burden has been
imposed. Somewhat similar statutes have
been enacted in several states. but they
vary from ours in essential particulars:
and the decisions thereon have not been or
much aid 10 us In constituting this act. III
any of such other acts have provisions au-
thorizing a sale for the amount of the debt.
such provisions have not been called 10 our
attention. We have not seen any, nut We
have not examined particularly, as II Is
lmrnaferiel. for our act PROVIDES Tor IL In
unmistak a BILE terms. and this * the act
we have 10 constrge In considering TINS
act We have called attention to some mat
tiers we have not attempted to decide. but
for the purpose OF showing that there may
he some effect given TO each provision. anu
that they have not been overiooked Inc
discussion OF many points ana our con-
ssruetion thereof regarding the act. ana
section 10 particularly. are rendered neees-
sary under the mortgage here In contro-
while IL differs materially from that con-
tended for or suggested In the briefs at
tempting 10 deal with IL somewhat in de-
tall seems 10 be the only one that VIII give
q legitimate effect to each provision.
I'VE will mex: consider the act entitled
An act relating to deficiency judgments. .
claws 1897 page 81. Section / is as fol-S
lows:
That In all proceedings for the fore
closure of mortgages hereafter executed.
or on judgments rendered upon The debt
thereby secured the mortgages or as
signee shall be limited 10 the property in
Guided I'm the mortgage.
'section repeats all acts or parts of acts
In conflict with IL.
The discussions in some Of the briefs
view the act as prescribing a method OF
procedure Looking only TO the title of
the act and the older and later practice
relating TO the foreclosure OF mortgages.
this would In measure be Justified. II il
could be held 10 apply 10 matter OF
practice only and 10 prohibit deficiency
cages and the right remains intact to en-
force collection of the deficiency in a SUBJ
sequent suit or TO waive the security in the
first instance and brsng an Ordinary action
where there Is a covenant 70 pay in the
mortgage or a separate instrument con-
tracing 10 pay then the question comes
UP, what measure of public policy can IL
serve 10 prohibit waiver? All agree that
II IL is a matter OF public policy 1t cannot
be waived by the parties. IL a matter OF
private concern. IL may be. 1t would be
hard TO conceive of any public interest that
would be promoted in recurring a debtor