| Edition:
|
Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company (141 U.S. 411), to lend her the sum of $10,000 for five years, at 9 per cent per annum She and her husband executed to the company, for the principal of the loan, 10 coupon bonds, of $1,000 each, dated February 1, 1876, and payable on the 1st day of February, 1881, with interest, semi-annually, at the rate of 7 per cent per annum They executed at the same time 10 promissory notes, of $100 each, for the remaining 2 per cent, the first one being payable August 1, 1876, and the others, respectively, on the 1st days of February and August, 1877, to 1881, inclusive To secure payment of the bonds, they conveyed to Jonathan Edwards, trustee, certain real estate in Spring-field, and, to secure the 10 promissory notes of $100 each, they conveyed the same property to the same trustee, subject, however, to the other trust-deed These deeds do not differ in any respect material to this case from the deeds in the preceding cases, (12 Sup Ct Rep 1,7,) except that the deed given to secure the bonds here involved, aggregating $10,000, provides that nothing contained in it shall be so construed 'as to prevent a foreclosure of the same by process of the law or in chancery,' and that the trustee, or his successor or successors, shall, 'upon any foreclosure of this trust-deed, recover, in addition to principal, interest, and ordinary costs, a reasonable attorney's or solicitor's fee, not exceeding five per cent for the collection thereof, all to be collected without relief from valuation or appraisement laws And in case of any such foreclosure it is hereby stipulated that the decree or order for foreclosure shall direct and require that the expenses of such foreclosure and sale, including the fees of solicitor and counsel, to be taxed by the court at a reasonable amount, shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale,' etc This suit was brought to foreclose the defendant's equity of redemption, and to have the mortgaged property sold to pay the amount due the company The answer in the case raised the same questions that are presented in the four preceding cases 12 Sup Ct Rep 1, 7 .
|
