Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1898-02-11
TWO KELLEY DECISIONS,


MRS. nate Burohard's Mortgage L. valid
on Property horeciosed and sold by
A. =. heiiey---the Purchaser, Though
Ignorant OF ANY irreVuiarity. Must
sufcr the Loss.
The supreme court of Minnesota gave a
decision Feb. iu the case of Kate NJ
burCnaru, appellant. VS.. w. j.. Hull ct AL.
defendants, Martin Wells respondent The
decision was I'D Mrs Burcnard favor.
ms was test case among the many ke-
lev suits and the decision rs OF great inter
est and Importance to all the Kelley claim
ants. The facts briefly stated are. In
January, 1890 Mrs Burchard made or
bought through the Vermont National
bank $1,000 Kelley loan on scott county
real estate IN Minnesota The $1,000 note
ana interest coupons were secured by
mortgage. The mortgage and other pa
pers were sent TO Mrs burchard and held
10y her. The interest coupons were for
warued by her for collection through the
; bank. and were paid until the coupons due
/ July !, 1872, ana January 1, 1895, were
: deiautted. A. +. Kelley. 1t now appears,
! then tOrecloseu the mortgage. and IN 1894
sold anu conveyed the land TO Martin Wells
1 Tor sliJU cash, ana appropriated the mon
Mrs. BurchaId knew nothing The semi
annual interest was transmitted TO her.
and she supposed IL was paid by Hull. the
mortgage The fact OF the foreclosure
ana sale was not known to her until after
the failure OF the keieys 10 the fall OF
. 1872.
Mrs. Burchard then brought suit 10 re-
Z cover the amount OF ner mortgage from
" ellis, who had bought the property. II
was not claimed that Wells knew the ante
cedent tacts or that ne supposed tins TO be
4 other Lnan an honest and bona noe sale
] Inc trial court sustained the contention OF
J the helleys THAT they were justified III
} toreclOsIng tine mortgage IN their capacity
as agents. Al was on TINS question that
the case hinged IN It's consideration by the
supreme COur.
That court says. IN substance. IN its de-
cIslOn. that an agent might 90 TO the eX-
tent OF suelng To- collect the amount OF an
interest coupon. but the agent could not
toreclose mortgage without tine express
authority OF ms principal. 40 Is aXiOmauc.
the court SAYS. that all such matters are
governed by "a well defined and public
known usage But no usage existed 10
authorize the Kelley action. III an agent
90 whom an interest coupon rs sent TOR col
4tN-A3At WINE his uIlutlpdl IttAlle III lis
own possession the collateral mortgage and
punclpa. note not YET due, mas implied
power 10 forecIOse the mortgage the sooner
men know DO lhe better We auprenend
the announcement. OF anF sucu doctrine
would take both the legal profession and
business meu uy suru-s
tyeg tu" puuCipl. note mad been due
it Us question whether ile agau. e1L..
have torecIoss1 wituou. authority 1. ,u-
uriuclp-. lt was elaine. Una. tue dec
1eudau. Neus was entitled 20 protection
unQer the registry Jaws of the state. winch
showed q clear claim of title. but the case
rs as though one link lu tine chain uf title
MAD useu forged The le1ec, boz the regis
try laws mere suggested was remedIci ny an
ao- of 1897. winch requires tine authority
OF al attorney 10 toreclose 4 mortgage to be
~ writing and RECORDED.
The defendant Wells rs unfortunate
the victim of fraud and tine dishonesty Of
the helieys. uut TINS Is no reason why the
plaintiff should De deprived OF her mort
gage Order reversed. Mitchell y