DocketNumber: No. 6,993.
Citation Numbers: 20 P.2d 1054, 94 Mont. 34
Judges: MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the court.
Filed Date: 3/29/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
I am unable to see any justification for the decision in this case. Upon the facts and procedure followed it cannot be distinguished from Morrison v. Farmers Traders' State Bank,
It is true that some apparent confusion has resulted from efforts to reconcile two sections of the Revised Codes of 1921: Section 8264, which provides for the extension of a mortgage by joint act of the parties pursuing "the formalities required in the case of a grant of real property," and section 8267, which permits the extension of a mortgage by affidavit filed by the mortgagor or his successor. As is observed in the majority opinion, between the mortgagor and the mortgagee a mortgage is good as long as the debt secured thereby is alive (section 8243); and as between them section 8267 has no application. (Skillen
v. Harris, supra; Turner v. Powell,
The case of Jones v. Hall,
One who is not liable for the payment of a debt is under no obligation to plead the statute of limitations challenging its existence. When Richardson pleaded the special statute of limitations afforded by section 8267, he set up a perfect defense. As he had not become liable for the debt, it did not make any difference to him whether it was alive or not. When the vendee of the mortgagor connects himself with the debt by *Page 45 making payments upon it, of course a different situation arises. (Turner v. Powell, supra.) To say his plea based upon section 8267, wherein he followed the procedure in the Morrison Case exactly, is not good, and that he must plead against the life of the debt, which is no concern of his, presents a confusion of ideas. Such a contention is contrary to the plain intent of the statute and is not warranted by anything this court has ever said in construing it.
The majority opinion denies to Richardson a statutory right and places upon him a burden not justified by law. Worse yet, it does that which no court has the right to do; in effect it repeals a valid statute.
Rehearing denied May 22, 1933.