1. A stipulation in a Farm financing financial that, in case of suit to foreclose, the mortgagor shall spend a fair attorney’s cost getting fixed from the courtroom, was legitimate within the Federal Farm Loan Act if legitimate in state laws. P. 292 U. S. 54 .
2. the goal of the Farm financing work is let producers, by mortgaging their lands, to have financing at inexpensive, and that purpose is going to be seen in identifying understanding an acceptable attorney’s cost in a 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 where test judge have refused to enforce a stipulation for an attorney’s charge.
Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Warner
1. A stipulation in a Farm financing financial that, in the event of suit to foreclose, the mortgagor shall shell out a reasonable lawyer’s fee is set because of the courtroom, are legitimate beneath the government Farm mortgage work if valid under the state laws. P. 292 U. S. 54 .
2. the objective of the Farm financing operate will be facilitate farmers, by mortgaging their particular countries, to acquire loans at inexpensive, and that objective is going to be observed in identifying what exactly is an acceptable attorney’s fee 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 financial where the trial legal had would not impose a stipulation for a lawyer’s charge.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER provided the view of this courtroom.
Respondents gave petitioner a home loan to their farm lands in Arizona to secure a loan of $7,200 made in accordance making use of the Farm mortgage operate. [Footnote 1] The home loan produces that, in case there are fit to foreclose, the mortgagors shall shell out a fair attorney’s fee to-be fixed of the courtroom. And that condition was appropriate under Arizona rules. [Footnote 2] The borrowers creating did not shell out per their particular promise, petitioner put this match to foreclose the mortgage and prayed that an attorney’s charge of $125 be within the wisdom. Respondents objected into the allowance of any quantity due to that object, the test court suffered their particular contention, plus the supreme courtroom kept that an element of the decree upon the ground that the number of these a fee was prohibited of the appropriate element of § 31: “No land-bank . . . shall demand or get any cost, payment, added bonus, present, or other factor maybe not here specifically authorized.” 12 U.S.C. § 983.
That construction cannot be sustained. The Act determines collaboration between borrowers on farm mortgages and people when you look at the ties protected by all of them. The requirement, by means of the financial provision, that a mortgagor shall carry the cost put upon the lender by his standard are affordable, as well as in equilibrium with that idea.
From inside the lack of a plain appearance to this effects, it may not feel conducted that Congress meant to put upon nondefaulting consumers any the main expenses of property foreclosure of mortgage loans made by other individuals. The work does not recommend proceedings for foreclosures, but indicates that county legislation should be regulate. Part 30 directs the land bank commissioner to examine the regulations of https://americashpaydayloan.com/payday-loans-wv/huntington/ each and every State also to submit, among other things, whether, within his thoughts, they are like to safeguard against reduction in circumstances of standard. 12 U.S.Code, § 971. It offers that, if evaluation shall reveal that the statutes of any don’t manage adequate safety, the Farm credit score rating government may declare mortgages on area in this county ineligible. Signal, § 972. In addition to petition with this writ suggests that, except in a few reports in which regional legislation prohibits this type of deals, all of the mortgages used because of the government secure Finance companies have terms for attorneys’s fees for property foreclosure. [Footnote 3] with this it would appear that officers recharged legally utilizing the management regarding the finance companies usually construed the operate to allow county legislation to regulate. All of our interest will not be called to the instance by which that building has been interrogate. It’s entitled to great pounds. United States v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 278 U. S. 269 , 278 U. S. 280 .