Maynes v. Moore
Decision Date | 29 May 1861 |
Citation | 16 Ind. 116 |
Parties | Maynes v. Moore, and Another |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Reported at: 16 Ind. 116 at 123.
APPEAL from the Union Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
N Trusler, J. P. Gardner, Jno. S. Reid and Thos. A. Hendricks for the appellant.
John Yaryan, James Gavin and Oscar B. Hord, for the appellees.
A mortgage was executed to the State of Indiana, of which a copy, in substance, follows:
Afterward, Hunt sold and conveyed the land to Maynes, subject to the mortgage.
In 1842 the Legislature reduced the rate of interest on the mortgage to 7 per cent. Maynes paid the interest annually until 1858, when he failed to make the payment, and the commissioners sold the land mortgaged to James Gavin, who assigned his certificate of purchase to Moore, one of the defendants. Moore procured from the Auditor of State a writ as follows:
Given under my hand and official seal, at Indianapolis, this 28th day of March, A. D., 1859.
John W. Dodd, Auditor of State."
The seal of the State is attached to the writ. The certificate of sale to Gavin is in the record, and is correctly recited by the Auditor. To enjoin the execution of this warrant, was the object of this suit.
The complaint alleges:
1. That the property is worth $ 3000.
2. That the plaintiff is the owner, and in possession of it.
3. "That during the year 1858, the interest on the mortgage was sent by plaintiff, by a special messenger, to be paid to the President of the said Sinking Fund, for the purpose of paying said interest then due, viz.: $ 35; which, along with $ 5 to pay cost of advertisement, the officer having charge of said fund at Indianapolis refused to receive, alleging that the land mortgaged, as aforesaid, had been purchased by the State of Indiana and resold to one James Gavin;" "but," says the complaint, "no certificate of sale had then been delivered to said Gavin." The certificate was executed on December 12, 1858, as appears by its date.
4. "That he, plaintiff, has always been ready and willing to pay said interest and all costs appertaining thereto, and has offered the same, but neither the said Moore, nor the said Sinking Fund will receive the same."
A demurrer was sustained to the complaint, because it did not contain facts constituting a cause of action.
The points made in the brief of plaintiff are:
1. "That the law, at the date of forfeiture and sale, does not authorize such an extra judicial sale as the one made by the Sinking Fund Commissioner, as shown in the complaint, purports to be; and that it is doubtful whether any law is in force at all authorizing any other sale than a foreclosure by a Court of competent jurisdiction, under the Constitution."
2. "But if there was such a law, still the commissioner should have sold only so much of the land mortgaged as would have brought the amount of the loan and interest."
3.
We examine these points in their order:
In 1834 an act was passed creating a State bank. This was under the old Constitution, which did not limit acts to a single subject; and the last ten sections of that bank act created and regulated the management of a sinking fund. They prescribed the securities on which the fund might be loaned; the mode of enforcing collections out of said securities; and that "In the examination of the title to real estate, fixing the value thereof, and the amount for which it is to be mortgaged; the amount of the loan; its duration and rate of interest; the nature of the mortgage; the registering, canceling, or foreclosing thereof; and in the making and collecting any of said loans, with the interest thereon, the said board [the Board of Commissioners] shall be governed, in all respects, by the provisions of the several acts authorizing the loaning of the Seminary funds." R. S. 1838, § 115, p. 114.
The Seminary acts were passed prior to the bank act. R. S. 1831, pp. 495-499. And the provisions of them, touching loans and foreclosures, were, in legal effect, incorporated by reference into the part of the bank act regulating the Sinking Fund; and, hence, were continued in force, so far as they made a part of that act, and for the purposes of that act, by the Code of 1852, vol. 1, divisions 17 and 19, p. 431, which continues in force, "All acts relative to the Sinking Fund" and "All laws regulating the Sinking Fund."
The provisions of the Seminary act, then, so far as incorporated in the bank act, being in force for the purposes of Sinking Fund loans and sales, we inquire, In what manner do they authorize sales to be made?
On failure to pay the interest in advance, of any given year they authorize, at a given time and place, on sixty days notice, an offer of sale of the land mortgaged, for cash down; and if no one bids the amount of the debt, damages and costs, they authorize the land to be bid in for the beneficiary of the fund, at the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McIntosh v. Melroe Co.
...doubt that the Legislature may vary the nature and extent of remedies, so always that a substantial remedy exists.'" Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116, 122 (Ind. 1861) (quoting Story's Com. § 1379). Later, this Court reiterated the importance of remedy: "It has always been a general principle un......
-
Burget v. Merritt
...473; Andrews v. Russell, 7 Blackf. 474; Davis v. State Bank, 7 Ind. 316; State v. Sickler, 9 Ind. 67; McGill v. Doe, 9 Ind. 306; Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116; Walpole v. Elliott, 18 Ind. 258, 81 Dec. 358; Wood v. Kennedy, 19 Ind. 68; Pierce v. Mills, 21 Ind. 27; Price v. Huey, 22 Ind. 18; M......
-
Moore v. Letchford
...v. Furman, 25 N. Y. 214; Coriell v. Ham, 4 Green (Iowa), 455; Heyward v. Judd, 4 Minn. 483;Swift v. Fletcher, 6 Minn. 550;Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116;Smith v. Packard, 12 Wis. 371; Grosvenor v. Chesley, 48 Me. 369; Van Rensalaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. 100;Van Rensalaer v. Hays, Id. 68;Litchfiel......
-
Dowell v. Talbot Paving Co.
...legislature may, without a violation of the constitution, provide for a cumulative and more speedy remedy than the existing one (Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116;Webb v. Moore, 25 Ind. 4;Jones v. Hopkins, 26 Ind. 450); and may likewise provide a remedy where none existed (Sparks v. Clapper, 30 ......