Grand Forks herald., 1917-02-24
sheriff the next day after tho year

sheriff the next day after tho year
Of redemption had expired.
! The defendants appeal to this court
and insist that the court is powerless
to decree redemption because 1t was
q day too late. To redeem the plain
tiff incurred a great expense. Sne
risked her health and life In driving
over the cold drifting SHOWS when
her driver lost his way. She put her
redemption money into the hands OF
two sheriffs in the best Of good faith.
but by reason of accidents which she
could not forsee or prevent she got
| to the last sheriff few hours after
the lapse Of the year from the date
when her mortgages had caused her
property to be sold to themselves fot n
| much less than its value. NOW II
would seem that If courts cannot give
relief under such circumstances. 1t is
time for the judges to go to bed and
cover their heads in shame. The
statutes gives a mortgage only a
conditional right to become a pur-
chaser of land at his own foreclosure
sale. He must act fairly and in good
faith. so as to avoid oppression and
gagor through the forms Of the law.
He is entitled to only his money.
with interest at the enormous rate of
twelve per cent, even though he gets
it few days before or after the year
of redemption. He has no right to
avail himself of the law to get some
thing for nothing, or to speculate on
the misfortunes of his debtor.
To mitigate the asperities of the
law and to grant relief against for
FIXTURES, penalties. accidents and mis-
takes. this has always been the spec
ial function and the duty of courts
of equity. This court is not disposed
to give the pound Of flesh. because it
is so denominated in the bond. The
judgment of the district court is high
ly commended: and 1t is affirmed.
Sletten v. Bank.
Robinson. j.: This is suit for
redemption from foreclosure sale
after the making Of a sheriff's deed
made by the PLAINTIFF on April 10.
1918, the bank foreclosed on quar-
ter section of land and bid in the
same for principal and interest and
cdsts. amounting to 100000. The
trial court, by Hon. J. A. Coffey, gave
judgment for the plaintiff and the
bank appeals to this court.
evidence shows. the plaintiffs equity
in the land amounts to $500. and
so it seems the bank insists on re-
ceiving from the plaintiff twelve times
the total amount Of it's little mort
gage. with interest and costs. That
seems like trying to kill the goose
that laid the golden egg. Under the
statute a mortgage or his assigns
may fairly and in good faith become
purchaser Of the property sold.
Good faith consists in an honest in
tention to abstain from taking an un-
conscientious advantage of another
even through the forms and techni-
calties of law. The law and the
courts are not made to rob men of
their property. The case is much
the same as If party should pledge
or pawn a watch worth $120 as Sc
curity for $40, payable in a month,
and after the lapse of the month
watch, the pawnee says to him: "You
are too late. 1 have sold the watch
to myself for $40" OF course that
is not good faith. 1t is trying tn
take an unconscionable advantage Of
another through the forms and tech
nfcalities Of the law. And strange
as 1t may seem. there are some court
decisions that do in such cases hold
in favor Of giving the pound Of flesh.
but we prefer to base the decision of
this court on broader and a better
equity. We agree with the trial court
that the foreclosure was unnecessary;
that it was conducted in bad faith
and for the purpose Of obtaining title
to the plaintiffs land. and that the
debt might we'll have been collected
by fair and courteous notices and
correspondence, without piling up
costs of foreclosure. The Judgment
of the district court is affirmed.