Doolittle v. Nurnberg

• Decision Date: 29 April 1914
• Citation: 147 N.W. 400,27 N.D. 521
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

147 N.W. 400

27 N.D. 521

ARCHIBALD A. DOOLITTLE v. HERMAN NURNBERG

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 29, 1914

Appeal from District Court, Stutsman County, J. A. Coffey, J.

Action in foreclosure. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Oscar J. Seiler and A. W. Aylmer, for appellant.

This action should be dismissed because plaintiff had waived his right of election to declare the whole sum secured by the mortgage due, and to foreclose for same. Van Vlissingen v. Lenz, 171 Ill. 162, 49 N.E. 423.

The right to declare the whole sum due on account of partial default must be exercised with promptness. Such right may be lost by laches. 27 Cyc. 1533, note 62.

The default contemplated in the mortgage may be waived by parol agreement; and neither a court of equity nor of law will enforce a forfeiture or credit, under such parol agreement. 2 Jones, Mortg. p. 140; Van Syckle v. O'Hearn, 50 N.J.Eq. 173, 24 A. 1024; Albert v. Grosvenor Invest. Co L. R. 3 Q. B. 127, 8 Best & S. 664, 37 L. J. Q. B. N. S 24.

The actions of a party may constitute a complete waiver of the default, and estop him to proceed to declare the whole sum due, and to foreclose. 16 Cyc. 144; National Land Co. v Derry, 23 Kan. 140; Adams v. Rutherford, 13 Ore. 78, 8 P. 896.

Where one by his conduct induces another to act on the supposition that certain conditions exist, he will not be heard to deny their existence, to the damage of one who has relied upon such conduct. Anthes v. Schroeder, 74 Neb. 172, 103 N.W. 1072; Larson v. Anderson, 74 Neb. 361, 104 N.W 925; Decker v. Sexton, 19 Misc. 59, 43 N.Y.S. 167; McDonald v. Beatty, 9 N.D. 293, 83 N.W. 224; Hanson v. Hanson Hardware Co. 23 N.D. 169, 135 N.W. 767; 16 Cyc. 87.

The intention of the plaintiff to grant an extension is wholly immaterial. The question is, Was his conduct such as to mislead defendant to his damage? 40 Cyc. 262 (14); Hyatt v. Zion, 102 Va. 909, 48 S.E. 1; Broderick v. Smith, 26 Barb. 539; Keator v. Ferguson, 20 S.D. 473, 129 Am. St. Rep. 947, 107 N.W. 678; Millis v. Ellis, 109 Minn. 81, 122 N.W. 1119; Staats v. Wilson, 76 Neb. 210, 109 N.W. 379.

Equity will step in to prevent fraud and damages resulting. 27 Cyc. 1452, notes 66, 67.

Where a grantor conveys real property with full covenants of warranty, when he has neither title nor possession, there is at once a constructive eviction of the grantee, which entitles him to the same remedies as though actually evicted. Burleigh County v. Rhud, 23 N.D. 362, 136 N.W. 1082; Dahl v. Stakke, 12 N.D. 325, 96 N.W. 353.

There was a partial failure of consideration, and such defense is proper in an action to foreclose. Smith v. Gaub, 19 N.D. 337, 123 N.W. 827; Sweet v. Howell, 96 A.D. 45, 89 N.Y.S. 21; 20 Decen. Dig. Vendor & Purchaser, § 351 (g).

The plaintiff had dedicated a portion of the land conveyed to the defendant, to the public, before he conveyed to defendant. 13 Cyc. 476 (79), (81), (84), 478 (18), 479 (23), 480-483 (43), 493; Mason v. Sioux Falls, 2 S.D. 640, 39 Am. St. Rep. 802, 51 N.W. 770; Lauer v. Lauer Brewing Co. 180 Pa. 593, 37 A. 87; Collins v. Asheville Land Co. 128 N.C. 563, 83 Am. St. Rep. 720, 39 S.E. 21; Watertown v. Troeh, 25 S.D. 21, 125 N.W. 501.

The public had made acceptance of such dedication by constant user. Mason v. Sioux Falls, 2 S.D. 640, 39 Am. St. Rep. 802, 51 N.W. 770; Watertown v. Troeh, 25 S.D. 21, 125 N.W. 501; Larson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 19 S.D. 284, 103 N.W. 35; Stephens v. Boyd, Iowa , 138 N.W. 389; Kane v. Templin, Iowa , 138 N.W. 901; 39 Cyc. 1947 (34), 1948 (42).

Carr & Kneeland, for respondent.

An agreement to extend the time of payment must be based upon a valid and sufficient consideration, and for a definite period of time. 7 Cyc. 897, 900; 8 Cyc. 158, and note 36; Gaar, S. & Co. v. Green, 6 N.D. 48, 68 N.W. 318.

A promise to do nothing more than one is already legally bound to do is no consideration. Ibid.

The allegations in the answer do not constitute any defense. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6858.

It is improper to allow an amendment to a pleading, which sets up a new and different cause of action from that originally pleaded. Woodward v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 38, 111 N.W. 627.

An amended answer changing the defense and alleging fraud should not be allowed. Haag v. Burns, 22 S.D. 51, 115 N.W. 104.

The right to amend must be timely asserted and claimed. 31 Cyc. 394-396.

If the entire pleading fails to state a cause of action, no amendment so as to state a cause is permissible. 31 Cyc. 407, and note 76, 409, 423; Mares v. Wormington, 8 N.D. 329, 79 N.W. 441.

There must be a valid and sufficient consideration to support an agreement for an extension, and such must be pleaded. This rule also applies to a waiver. 7 Cyc. 897, 900; 8 Cyc. 178, and note 36; 9 Cyc. 347, 349; Gaar, S. & Co. v. Green, 6 N.D. 48, 68 N.W. 318.

Estoppel is not raised by inference or argument. It must rest on facts and the facts must be pleaded and proved. 16 Cyc. 748, and note 42.

Mere silence at a time when there is no occasion to speak does not constitute a waiver, nor is it evidence from which a waiver may be inferred. 40 Cyc. 261-263.

Waiver must be proved by the party claiming it, by such evidence as well not leave the matter in doubt or uncertain. 40 Cyc. 269.

Conduct that misleads no one is not a waiver. People ex rel. McBride v. Atchinson, 68 Misc. 115, 123 N.Y.S. 577; 40 Cyc. 269.

To constitute estoppel, the representation must be such as to induce a man of ordinary prudence to act therein. Hefner v. Vandolah, 57 Ill. 520, 11 Am. Rep. 39; Howe Mach. Co. v. Farrington, 82 N.Y. 121.

A person is not estopped by his silence, where there is no positive duty to speak. Bramble v. Kingsbury, 39 Ark. 131; Terre Haute & S.E. R. Co. v. Rodel, 89 Ind. 128, 46 Am. Rep. 164; Viele v. Judson, 82 N.Y. 32.

Nor can the meaning of a representation be enlarged so as to create an estoppel. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 24; Henry v. Gilliland, 103 Ind. 177, 2 N.E. 360; Haugen v. Skjervheim, 13 N.D. 616, 102 N.W. 311; Irvin v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 92 Ill. 103, 34 Am. Rep. 116.

The commencement of foreclosure of a mortgage, where the notice shows that the entire sum is claimed to be due, is sufficient notice of election to declare the whole sum due, without previous notice to the mortgagor. 27 Cyc. 1524; Hodgdon v. Davis, 6 Dak. 21, 50 N.W. 478; Brown v. McKay, 151 Ill. 315, 37 N.E. 1037; Owen v. Occidental Bldg. & L. Asso. 55 Ill.App. 347; Fowler v. Woodward, 26 Minn. 347, 4 N.W. 231; Swearingen v. Lahner, 93 Iowa 147, 26 L.R.A. 765, 57 Am. St. Rep. 261, 61 N.W. 431; Hawes v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co. 109 Mich. 324, 63 Am. St. Rep. 581, 67 N.W. 329.

Acceptance of interest due does not waive the default in payment of matured instalments of principal. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Butler, 57 Neb. 198, 77 N.W. 667; National L. Ins. Co. v. Butler, 61 Neb. 449, 87 Am. St. Rep. 462, 85 N.W. 437.

Respondent's foreclosure was timely begun. Wheeler & W. Co. v. Howard (C. C.) 28 F. 741; Fletcher v. Dennison, 101 Cal. 292, 35 P. 868; Moore v. Sargent, 112 Ind. 484, 14 N.E. 466.

There was no express waiver, and had there been, it would be without consideration. Baldwin Invest. Co. v. Bailey, 45 Neb. 580, 63 N.W. 847; Post v. Industrial Land Development Co. N.J.Eq. , 34 A. 137; Smith v. Hooton, 3 Pa. Dist. R. 250; Hewett v. Dean, 3 Cal. Unrep. 385, 25 P. 753.

There was no waiver by inference or implication. 27 Cyc. 1532.

There was no dedication to the public of any part of the land conveyed. A mere permissive use by the public, of a piece of ground used by one's self in his business, is no dedication. Chicago v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 152 Ill. 561, 38 N.E. 768; Weiss v. South Bethlehem, 136 Pa. 294, 20 A. 801; Frankford & S. P. City Pass. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 175 Pa. 120, 34 A. 577; Com. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 135 Pa. 256, 19 A. 1051.

A mere courtesy can never grow or ripen into a right. Harper v Dodds, 3 Ill.App. 331; State v. Tucker, 36 Iowa 485; Witter v. Harvey, 1 M'Cord, L. 67, 10 Am. Dec. 650; People v. Livingston, 27 Hun, 105; Root v. Com. 98 Pa. 170, 42 Am. Rep. 614; State v. Green, 41 Iowa 693; Jones v. Phillips, 59 Ark. 35, 26 S.W. 386; Sharp v. Mynatt, 1 Lea, 375; Com. v. Kelly, 8 Gratt. 632; Dicken v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co. 41 W.Va. 511, 23 S.E. 582; Cooper v. Monterey County, 104 Cal. 437, 38 P. 106, 311; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 105, 367; State v. Mitchell, 58 Iowa 567, 12 N.W. 598; Speir v. New Utrecht, 121 N.Y. 420, 24 N.E. 692; Durgin v. Lowell, 3 Allen, 398; Burleigh County v. Rhud, 23 N.D. 362, 136 N.W. 1082; Hall v. McLeod, 2 Met. (Ky.) 98, 74 Am. Dec. 400; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N.C. 487, 55 Am. Rep. 619; Silva v. Spangler, 5 Cal. Unrep. 277, 43 P. 617; Kyle v. Logan, 87 Ill. 64; Fisk v. Havana, 88 Ill. 209; Chicago v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 152 Ill. 561, 38 N.E. 768; 5 Am & Eng. Enc. Law, 402; Gowen v. Philadelphia Exch. Co. 5 Watts & S. 141, 40 Am. Dec. 489; Stacey v. Miller, 14 Mo. 478, 55 Am. Dec. 112; Boeres v. Strader, 1 Cin. S.Ct. 57; Griffin's Appeal, 109 Pa. 150; Ramthun v. Halfman, 58 Tex. 551; Niles v. Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 572, 58 P. 190; Williams v. New York & N.H. R. Co. 39 Conn. 509; Hemingway v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 324; Illinois Ins. Co. v. Littlefield, 67 Ill. 368; State v. Tucker, 36 Iowa 485; White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254; Hutto v. Tindall, 6 Rich. L. 396; Fox v. Virgin, 11 Ill.App. 513; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 26, 17 S.W. 520; Verona v. Allegheny Valley R. Co. 152 Pa. 368, 25 A. 518; City Cemetery Asso. v. Meninger, 14 Kan. 312; State v. Nudd, 23 N.H. 327; Saulet v. New Orleans, 10 La.Ann. 81; Morgan v. Lombard, 26 La.Ann. 462; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53; Bowman v. Wickliffe, 15 B. Mon. 84; Beall v. Clore, 6...