Houghton v. Field
Houghton v. Field
Opinion of the Court
Several questions arise in this case, and in that of Bacon against the same defendant, which, we understand, are not yet ready for a hearing; but one question has been argued, which is preliminary in its nature, and lies at the foundation of the suit.
This is a bill in equity to redeem an equity of redemption, which has been sold on execution, pursuant to the statute. The suit was commenced within one year from the time of the sale at auction; but not within one year from the commencement of the levy. The question is, whether the suit was brought within the time limited by law. This depends upon the construction of several provisions of the revised statutes.
By the Rev. Sts. c. 73, <§> 31, an equity of redemption of real estate may be levied upon and set off on execution, the value of the incumbrances being deducted, and be held by the creditor, subject to redemption; or by <§> 37, such right in equity may be sold at auction, if the creditor prefer it, subject also to the mortgagor’s - right of redemption. In the present case, the equity of redemption was taken and sold pursuant to the election given to the creditor by this last provision.
The forty-second section gives the right of redemption, and provides that any equity of redemption, which has been taken and sold, as before provided, may be redeemed at any time within one year after such sale, upon payment or tender by the debtor of the sum for which the premises were sold, and the purchaser shall thereupon execute a release of such -ight.
We find the answer in the same chapter. The twenty-sixth section gives a remedy by writ of entry, where the debtor tenders the sum justly due for redemption, and the creditor fails to release the premises, within seven days after the tender; and the twenty-seventh provides, that, instead of a writ of entry, the debtor may bring a bill in equity for redemption, whether he has made a previous tender or not, provided the suit be commenced within one year after the levy of the execution. In this respect, the provision is like that for the redemption of land levied upon, which, by the twenty-fourth section, must be within one year after the levy. In cases of levy, where the estate passes without sale, some period must be fixed by positive law, and the first act of the levy is as definite and conspicuous as any other.
It seems clear, then, that, by the statute regulating the redemption of estates levied upon, there are three cases or modes in which the debtor may prosecute his right to redeem,
And we think, that by the provisions of the forty-second and forty-fourth sections, already cited, the same right is given to redeem an equity of redemption, which has been sold on execution, by payment or tender, or without tender ; with a difference as to the time of the commencement of the year, within which the proceeding is to be instituted, which is fixed by the sale and not by the levy. If it be argued, that a reference to the provisions of prior sections, for “ like remedies,” extends to a limitation of the time from the levy, which is one of them, we think the answer is, that the provision that this limitation shall commence from the sale is fixed by express enactment, and that the reference to those other sections, for like remedies, is fully satisfied, by adopting those provisions in other particulars. “ Like ” does not necessarily mean the same in all particulars, but rather the contrary. We think the suit was seasonably commenced, and must proceed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Luke Houghton v. Spencer Field
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published