Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-27

unnecessary for the reason that the
note, set forth in the mortgage, pro-
vides the date from which such COM
putation should be made. Vawter v
Craft, Al Mimi, IA, II. Should a per-
son purchasing one of these lots i'm
mediately after the execution of the
mortgage, and paying or Offering to
pay the amount required for a re-
lease from the mortgage, be in the
same position, and required to nav
the same amount as one attempting
to obtain such release 10 years af-
terwards? That such a construction
should be given to the mortgage is
not consonant with reason. In con-
STRUNG the stipulation all the con-
tents of the mortgage must be taken
into consideration. If upon the pay
ment of the principal amount stipu-
lated the mortgages were compelled
to release to a purchaser, then at any
time when rendered the amount she
might be compelled to release all of
the security given for the note. with
out the payment of any interest. In
the absence from the stipulation of
any specification regarding interest,
1t would be implied that in each in
stance each and every lot should pay
accrued interest on its proportionate
share of the debt The stipulation is
TO be construed in connection with
the covena4t!in in the mortgage as to
foreclosure and sale in case of de- !
fault. Vawter V. Craft, supra. To re-
qulre the mortgage to release the /
several lots from her mortgage. and
so lose the interest on any one LOT J
would be an injustice, and we think it |
was not the intention that such |
should be the case If intended that |
no interest was to be paid on the |
amount required for the release. the
stipulation would, in effect, indeed be
vicious as there would then be no
inducement for the purchaser to
make payment and obtain a release
until the mortgage should be fore
closed, and one purchasing subject to
the mortgage in 1892 could allow the
matter to remain unpaid until lust
before the time of the commencement
OF this suit, more than 10 years after
ward.
The testimony on the part of de-
fendant Raidabaugh was taken by de-
position, which deposition appears to
have been lost since the trial of the
cause, From a reference to the testi-
mony found in the transcript. it
seems that Raidabaugh's contract for
the purchase of these lots was at
tached to his deposition, and we are
Informed by counsel that his receipts
for payment, and written evidence of
his transactions with The Oregon
Land Company, were lost Herewith.
The circuit court found in substance
that D, NJ. Smith and subsequent pur-
chasers of the lots in question, knew
of Raidabaugh's contract, of his equi-
ties in the premises, that the allega-
tions of his answer were true, and
that they, therefore, were not inno-
cent purchasers. AS the evidence con-
cerning Raidabaugh's rights in the
premises is not all before us, we are
not in position to review these
findings of fact, and they will not be
disturbed. Wyatt V. Wyatt 81 Or,
531, 595; Morrison's Estate, 4S Or,
612, GA; Neal v. Roach, (0r.) 107
Pac., AIS. 1t is claimed in behalf of
defendant Raidabaugh that his re-
ceipts and the contract attached to !
his deposition having been lost or !
to have the cause remanded,
would work an injustice upon him, {
while counsel for the other defen- {
dants suggests that the cause should
be remanded for the purpose of TAX