Case Name: EDGAR v. GOLDEN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1900-02-19
Citations: 36 Or. 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDGAR v. GOLDEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 448–453

Head Matter:
Argued 18 January;
decided 19 February;
rehearing denied 23 April, 1900.
EDGAR v. GOLDEN.
[48 Pac. 1118, 60 Pac. 2.]
1. Appeal — Relieving Surety — Power of Supreme Court. — The supreme court will not grant a motion of a surety ou an appeal bond to require the appellant to file a new undertaking and relieve him from further liability of because of false and fraudulent representations inducing him to sign the undertaking, where the surety fails to make out his case by the preponderance of the evidence, even if such a proceeding can be sustained.
2. Parol Agreement Varying Mortgage. — Evidence of a parol agreement, made at the time of the execution and delivery of a note and mortgage, to the effect that the note should not be paid when it should become due, but that its payment should be contingent on another event, is not admissible: Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 257, applied.
3. Outstanding Title as Defense to Mortgage Foreclosure. — It is not competent for a vendee of land to set up an outstanding title as a defense to a suit against him to foreclose a mortgage for the purchase money.
From Marion : Henry H. Hewitt, Judge.
Mortgage foreclosure by David W. Edgar against T. L. Golden wherein plaintiff had a decree. After an appeal ' had been perfected, the surety on defendant’s undertaking prayed to be relieved from further liability. The motion was overruled, and on final hearing, the decision of the lower court was approved.
Affirmed.
Mr. W. T. Slater, for the motion.
Mr. J. A. Garson, contra.

Opinion:
Decided 19 April, 1897.
On Motion of Surety to be Eelieved.
[48 Pac. 1118.]
Per Curiam.
In this case the defendant perfected an appeal from a decree of the circuit court rendered against him in a suit for foreclosure, and W. H. Downing became his surety upon the undertaking for the appeal. Downing now asks leave to intervene in his own behalf, and moves the court to require the appellant to file a new undertaking and thereby relieve him from further liability. He grounds the application upon certain alleged false and fraudulent representations of the appellant whereby he was induced to sign the undertaking. The alleged facts are set forth by affidavit, and the appellant has taken issue with him upon every material point by counter affidavits, to which the surety replied by other affidavits, so that-there is presented here an issue of fact touching the alleged fraud. It is urged by the appellant that the proceeding is unknown to the law, and not well taken, but however this may be, and without passing upon that question, we do not think the surety has made such a case by the preponderance of the evidence as to entitle him to the relief sought. The motion will therefore be overruled. Motion Overruled.