STEVENS ,l', ,FER,¥-!
181, was one in suit, coyering land in a single county, and it is therefore not in point in this case. In the case of Orcutt v. Hanson; (Iowa,)' 32 N. W. Rep. 482, the suit was against the executrix of the mortgagor's will; the, mortgaged premises were situated in the county in which the defendant lived, and in which the estate WitS being settled in the probate court; the debt secured by the mortgage was payable in a different county, and the suit was brought in the latter county to collect the debt and foreclose the mortgage. The only question decided in that case was one which does not arise in this. Lomax v. Smyth, 50 Iowa, 232, is another Iowa case, later than either of the two mentioned above, and is in point. The decision is to the eflect that, under a section of the Iowa Code providing t43;t suits to foreclose mortgages must he brought in the county wherein the mortgaged property, or some part thereof, is situated, a decree of foreclosure and order of sale in a suit upon several deeds, each for a separate tract. given as for a debt, where It defeasance of all the lands by It single instrument had been taken by the mortgagor, brought ina Qoumyembracing only lands affected by one of the deeds, was valid and binding as to lands in another county. The decision in Wood v. MlUtick, 2 Wash. T. 64,8 Pac. Rep. 612, does not bearon the question at issue to any greater extent than this: It holds that foreclosure suits must be brought in the county or district in which the land, or some part thereof, lies. It does not intimate that more than one suit is necessary where several tracts in different counties are covered by a single mortgage. I hold that in said foreclosure. suit the jurisdiction of the district court at Olympia was not partial. and sufficient merely to Itfford part of the relief to which the mortgage entitled the plaintiff, but it was complete for all purposes. The mortgage given by the cOluplainantwas foreclosed, and the lands in controversy were sold, by proceedings and under process especially provided by the statutes for such a case, and the sale is not void because not made subject r.edem ption , as provided in the chapter relating to sales of real estate under executions, nor by reason of non-conformity to theprovisiolls of that in other particulars on the part of the sheriff, in executing the process and making ,his return. The particular provisions of that chapter invoked are wholly inapplicable to the case. Hays v. Miller, 1 Wash. T l 145; PIlrker v.. Dae-res, 2 Wash. T. 445, 7 Pac. Rep. 893. Bythe statute, the cOJ1wlainanthada right to redeeJD, the property by paying the mortgage debt, with interest and costs, at any time prior to the sale, (Laws 1873, p. 149, § 563';) and by the order of the court the time was extended for a period of six months from the date of confirmation of the :;ale. He did not avail himself of the right of redemption given to him by law, or the grace extemled to him by the court, and, by the sale or the property and lapse of time, all his rights to and, interest in the property were extingqished,and the right of the purchaser to have a valid deed from the sheriff became absolute. Whether such sdeed has or has not been executed and delivered is It question which i!,! not material in this case, because i,t does notconcern the com..-:plainant. Heis in no position to litigaw with the defendants
tion as to the validity or sufficiel1cy of the instrument which their grantor accepted from the sheriff as a deed in compliance with the order of the court. A decree will be entered in favor of the defendants, confirming their title to the land, as against the c o m p l a i n a n t . '
ROBINSON v. ALABAMA & G. MANUF'G Co.
(Oircuit Court, N.
Georgia. July 6, 1899
;. A. made by a manufactllzoingo corporation to secure its bonds empowerlld'tlle trustees, on default of interest payments, to sell the property, "if, after notioe'is served on the president of said company, the same shall remain unpaid six months after such default. "- ,Hlild., that when the trustees sued to fore'dose;, Instead of selling under the power, it was unnecessary to aver the giving of , ,notioe Of ,default to the defendant. I ,
Qne of three trustees in a trust-deed is entitled to sue alone for foreclosure when he avers that one of the others is dead, and that the remaining one, at a sale of tlle,pl;'OPerty under a decree of a state court, claimed to be interested in the purohW thereof, and "is inwrested adversely to your orator as trustee of said bond· holders."
2.. B.utJl-lBI1(GLll TRUSTIlIl'S :RIGHT TO BUJI:-I'LIlADJNG.
In "Equity. Suit by J. J. Robinson, trustee, t() foreclose a trustgiyenby the Ala:j)ama & Georgia ManUfacturing Company to secure certain "bonds. 0ndemurrer to bill. Abbott &7 Smith, for co'uirplainants. N. J. &7 T. A. Hammond, respondents. Be,fore LAMAR, Justice, and NEWMAN, J.
PER CtntrAM. There are five grounds for demurrer, and for com'enience we consider them in inverse order. the first ground thus considered is that" said complainant does not aver when default in the payme11t of interest on said bonds, or any of them, was made known to the trustees, or either of them, nor that any notice thereof has been sarved on the president of the said Alabama & Georgia Manufacturing Company, both of which are conditions precedent to the exercise of authority and duty, by said mortgage conferred on said trustees or a majority of them." The language of the trust-deed, so far as applicable.to th\sgrollnd of demurrer, is as follows: JOIn order, and in the fullest manner, to provide for the payment of bonds aJoresaid;and the interest thereon, at the tillle and place when and where the same'shail respectively fall due and be payable, the said J. G. Hobinsoll. W. C. Yancey. and W.'l"Huguley, or a majority of their survivors or successors, are ,hereby authorized and empowered, should default be made in the payment of said bqnds when they fall or in the paYll)ent of the interest on. said bonds as it shall accrue, they, immediately on such default, being made known by the holder or holders of the coupons attached thereto, an.d a1ternotlce is served upon the president of -aid complll.:, the same