The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-07

and perhaps it may be even stated
that the rule is absolute that no ex-
tension of time will be given where
the decree awards a sale. The doc
trine of this court in the respect
mentioned is we'll settled and viii be
found adjudged n the case of Clark
VS.. Reyburn, Z 5, Punited States, 31S,
and also in the case of Chicago and
Vincennes Railroad Co. VS.. Fosdick, 100
L. s., 20, and cases cited. The prac-
tice is stated III considerable detail
and fully in the cae of Perine VS..
Dunn, 4 Johnson CHI, 40; also in note
TO that case.
Chancellor Kent says, iii the opin-
ion III that case, that it may be
proper tc observe that though six
months subject to enlargement are al
lowed to redeem on a bill to foreclose
yet the rule and the practice apply
only to cases of strict foreclosure
where by the decree the equity of re-
remption is barred and a complete
title is vested in the MORTGAGE The
rule does not apply to cases Of de-
crees for the sale of mortgaged prem
ises according to our usual practice. g"
The circumstances referred to by
the defendant that the legislature of
North Carolina is not now in session
are wholly irrelevant. This decree
y
last. l Understandable the gentle
men on the other side will correct
NE if / am in error-that the legisla-
ture of the State of North Carolina
was then in session, and they could
have considered this matter then had
they been so disposed. INote-The
counsel was in error and this was cor
rected by Attorney-General Gilmer.
y no explained that the legislature was
nally.l
If the time for the payment of the
money is postponed or enlarged, mas
much as the decree fixes the amount
due, and gives no interest, the date OF
payment is POSTPONED absolutely at
the cost of the complainant, unless
ii should be provided as a condition
that the defendant should pay all in
teIest and costs.
The session of the legislature of
North Carolina for this year, ] under
stand, is to commence in January.
By the terms of the decree we are
compelled to give six weeks notice Of
the time and place of sale. Long be-
fore the time for sale will have ar
rived the legislature will have had
time to act in whatsoever way it
thinks best
Further. even under strictest -yules
for the strict foreclosure, the time to
pay was never extended except upon
equitable terms. II the defendants
financial representatives should adj
wise us of an earnest desire on their
part TO pay the sum decreed, and
should ask for time in order to effect
any particular action by the legisla-
ture, they would have no need to
come to this court to ask for time
1t would be a pleasure on the part OF
the complainant to grant whatever
time was necessary for such purpose
but | have vet to hear of any tendency
of desire upon the part of the defend
ant to pay the sum in the decree add
judged to be due and the State of
South Dakota therefore submits 10
this court that it would be unfair and
to enlarge the time pro-
vided in tho dacrce Cor the payment
OF the money even if under the settled
practice in regard to foreclosures
where a sale is adjudged, the court
had power to do it, especially when
the defendant at any time before sale
can pay the amount due and so sroT.
the sale.
WHEELER H. PECKHAM
r. w. STEWART
OF Counsel for Complainant.