Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner, 292 U.S. 53 (1934). Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner

Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner, 292 U.S. 53 (1934). Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner

U.S. Supreme Judge

1. A stipulation in a Farm Loan home loan that, in case of fit to foreclose, the mortgagor shall shell out a fair attorney’s cost as solved by the court, was good in Federal Farm mortgage Act if appropriate according to the state legislation. P. 292 U. S. 54 .

2. the intention of the Farm financing Act is enable producers, by mortgaging their places, to have financial loans at affordable, and this function is going to be observed in identifying something an acceptable attorney’s charge in a property foreclosure proceeding. P. 292 U. S. 57 .

Certiorari, 290 U.S. 620, to review the affirmance of a decree foreclosing a farm loan home loan when the demo court got would not apply a stipulation for legal counsel’s fee.

U.S. Great Court

Government Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner

CERTIORARI ON SUPREME JUDGE OF ARIZONA

1. A stipulation in a Farm Loan financial that, in case there is fit to foreclose, the mortgagor shall shell out a reasonable attorneys’s charge to get fixed by courtroom, is appropriate beneath the government Farm mortgage work if appropriate beneath the state legislation. P. 292 U. S. 54 .

2. the goal of the Farm Loan Act should let producers, by mortgaging their particular lands, to obtain debts at affordable, and this also factor is going to be seen in determining understanding a reasonable lawyer’s fee 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 wherein the demo court had refused to impose a stipulation for a lawyer’s cost.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER provided the view of the judge.

Respondents provided petitioner a home loan on the farm countries in Arizona to secure that loan of $7,200 produced in accordance utilizing the Farm mortgage Act. [Footnote 1] The mortgage produces that, in the event of fit to foreclose, the mortgagors shall pay a reasonable attorney’s charge are fixed of the court. Hence clause is actually appropriate under Arizona law. [Footnote 2] The consumers having did not spend in accordance with their own guarantee, petitioner brought this fit to foreclose the financial and prayed that an attorney’s fee of $125 be part of the judgment. Respondents objected towards allowance of any levels because of that items, the demo court suffered their assertion, together with supreme legal upheld that area of the decree upon the ground your collection of these a charge try forbidden of the appropriate element of § 31: “No land-bank . . . shall recharge or receive any fee, payment, incentive, gifts, and other factor perhaps not here particularly licensed.” 12 U.S.C. § 983.

That building can’t be sustained. The Act determines synergy between consumers on farm mortgages and people from inside the bonds guaranteed by them. The necessity, in the shape of the home loan supply, that a mortgagor shall carry the expense put-upon the financial institution by his default was sensible, as well as in harmony with that principle.

Within the lack of an ordinary appearance to that particular 24 hour payday loans Taylor effects, it may not getting used that Congress meant to put upon nondefaulting borrowers any a portion of the cost of property foreclosure of mortgages from people. The work does not recommend proceedings for foreclosure, but suggests that condition laws and regulations are to control. Area 30 guides the land bank commissioner to examine the laws and regulations of every State and document, among other things, whether, in the viewpoint, these are typically including to protect against loss in situation of standard. 12 U.S.Code, § 971. It gives you that, if evaluation shall demonstrate that the rules of every you should never manage enough protection, the Farm credit score rating Administration may declare mortgages on land in that State ineligible. Signal, § 972. And petition with this writ suggests that, except in some claims in which neighborhood legislation prohibits these contracts, all mortgage loans used by the government secure Financial institutions have stipulations for lawyer’s fees for foreclosures. [Footnote 3] with this it would appear that officers recharged for legal reasons utilizing the administration of the banking institutions constantly construed the work to allow condition legislation to regulate. Our very own attention will not be known as to virtually any instance by which that building is asked. It really is eligible to fantastic fat. Usa v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 278 U. S. 269 , 278 U. S. 280 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Choose Your Language »