U.S. Great Legal
1. A stipulation in a Farm Loan financial that, in case of match to foreclose, the mortgagor shall spend an acceptable attorney’s charge are solved by judge, was legitimate under the Federal Farm Loan operate if legitimate beneath the county law. P. 292 U. S. 54 .
2. the reason for the Farm mortgage Act will be make it easy for producers, by mortgaging their own lands, to obtain loans at affordable, and this also purpose is going to be noticed in identifying what is a fair attorneys’s charge in a foreclosures proceeding. P. 292 U. S. 57 .
Certiorari, 290 U.S. 620, to review the affirmance of a decree foreclosing a farm financing home loan in which the demo court got refused to implement a stipulation for a lawyer’s charge.
U.S. Great Court
Government Land-bank of Berkeley v. Warner
CERTIORARI ON THE GREAT LEGAL OF ARIZONA
1. A stipulation in a Farm financing Mortgage that, in the eventuality of fit to foreclose, the mortgagor shall spend a fair attorney’s fee as repaired because of the judge, are appropriate within the government Farm mortgage operate if good underneath the county law. P. 292 U. S. 54 .
2. the reason for the Farm financing operate will be make it possible for growers, by mortgaging their unique places, to acquire financial loans at inexpensive, this factor will be noticed in deciding what is an acceptable attorney’s charge in a foreclosure proceeding. P. 292 U. S. 57 .
Certiorari, 290 U.S. 620, to review the affirmance of a decree foreclosing a farm financing home loan where demo courtroom got refused to apply a stipulation for a lawyer’s charge.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER provided the view on the legal.
Respondents gave petitioner a mortgage on the farm lands in Arizona to protected that loan of $7,200 produced in conformity making use of the Farm Loan operate. [Footnote 1] The financial supplies that, in the event of suit to foreclose, the mortgagors shall pay a reasonable attorneys’s fee becoming solved of the courtroom. Which term try valid under Arizona rules. [Footnote 2] The individuals having failed to pay per their hope, petitioner lead this suit to foreclose the financial and prayed that legal counsel’s fee of $125 be included in the judgment. Participants objected on the allowance of every quantity on account of that item, the trial legal suffered their own assertion, while the supreme courtroom kept that part of the decree upon the floor your number of these types of a charge try forbidden of the following element of § 31: «No land-bank . . . shall recharge or get any fee, commission, bonus, gift, or any other factor not here specifically authorized.» 12 U.S.C. § 983.
That construction is not suffered. The work determines assistance between borrowers on farm mortgage loans and dealers from inside the bonds secured by all of them. The requirement, by way of the home loan provision, that a mortgagor shall bear the trouble put upon the lender by his standard is sensible, plus equilibrium thereupon idea.
In lack of a plain term to this effects, it may not feel conducted that Congress meant to put-upon nondefaulting individuals any area of the expense of property foreclosure of mortgage loans from other people. The operate will not prescribe legal proceeding for foreclosure, but suggests that condition laws and regulations should be regulate. Point 30 guides the land bank administrator to look at the laws and regulations of each State and document, among other things, whether, within his view, these include particularly to shield against loss in situation of default. 12 U.S.Code, § 971. It provides that, if examination shall reveal that the guidelines of any cannot manage adequate shelter, the Farm credit score rating management may MD payday loans declare mortgages on area in this county ineligible. Code, § 972. Together with petition for this writ suggests that, except in a few says in which neighborhood laws prohibits such deals, all of the mortgage loans used from the government Land Finance companies consist of conditions for lawyer’s fees for foreclosure. [Footnote 3] with this it seems that officials energized legally because of the management associated with banks constantly construed the work allowing state regulations to manage. Our very own attention is not known as to the circumstances which that development has-been asked. It is qualified for great pounds. U . s . v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 278 U. S. 269 , 278 U. S. 280 .
Recent Comments