Court Opinion

ID: 8851563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:15:03.175782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:30.947373
License: Public Domain

JENKINS, Circuit Judge.
In conformity with our decision when this cause was previously before us (18 U. S. App. -, 63 Fed. 891), the court below, on September 12, 1894, vacated so much of the original decree as adjudged that the principal of the bonds was due, and so much of its decree of March 2, 1893, confirming the sale of the mortgaged premises, as adjudged the balance of the debt, after application of the proceeds of sale, to be due, and rendered judgment to the complainant therefor, and thereupon in all other respects confirmed the original decree, and ratified and confirmed the sale of the mortgaged premises under the original decree before its reversal by this court. The appellant, complainant below, assigns for error that the court erred in not according to it a money judgment for the debt secured by the mortgage remaining unpaid after application of the proceeds of the sale. The refusal to award such a judgment was clearly right. If under the provisions of the trust deed the trustee could, under any circumstances, be entitled to a judgment for the amount of the bonds secured by the trust deed, and if its functions did not cease upon distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged premises among the various bondholders, — questions which we do not decide, — it still remains true that the principal of the bonds does not mature until the year 1916, that there is no provision in the bonds or the trust deed securing them that the principal should become due upon default in the payment of interest,, and that.a sale of the property mortgaged to secure the payment of the bonds could not have the ^effect of maturing the principal. A judgment for deficiency, before maturity of the principal, would be wholly unwarranted. Danforth v. Coleman, 23 Wis. 528.
Affirmed.