22‘ FEDERAL REPORTER.
` . `l.A}·,'_,, `._._· , .
~ ` v A Smomutrr Co. TLCHRISTY et al.
i (Circuit Court, S. D. Iowa, CC D. •December 12, 1887.)
Bill for Foreclosure of Mortgage.
K aufman ef Guernsey, for complainant. ,
Phillips di: Day, for defendants. °
SHIRAS} J. The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of foreclosing
a mortgage executed by Willian1`Christy to William Bolles to secure the pay-
ment of the sum of $4,000, payable November 1, 1884. In 1881, after the
execution of the mortgage, Christy sold the land to one Couch, who is made
adefendant. At different times payments of amounts sufficient in the ag-
gregate to discharge the mortgagedebt were made by Christy do Couch to H.
R. Creighton, of Des Moines; the same being made before the date of the ma-
turity of the loan. The conclusions reached in the case of Security Oo. v.
Richardscm, ante, 16. are decisive of this cause. The Security Company
does not claim to be the beneficial owner of the note and mortgage. It is
merely a trustee for William»Bolles. · The evidence shows, as is held in the
Richardson Case, that Bolles had constituted H. R. Creighton his agent in
Iowa, with authority to collect the amounts due him and to receive payment
thereon before, as well as after, maturity. The payments made to Creighton
were therefore, in eifect, made to Bolles, and hence, when this suit was
brought, there was nothing duecomplainant or William Bolles. Decree must
therefore be for dismissal of bill on the merits, at cost of complainant,
`V `HALL and others   Gnnnnnaunand others.
o l (Oireuil Oourt, M D. Illinois. December 20, 1887.)
Lrurryrron OF AGTIONS—BANKRUPTCY—SUSPENSION or Rrenr or- Aorrou.
Defendants were adjudged bankrupts in 1874, and plaintiifs proved their
claims against them. A dischargewas denied defendants in 1882. To an ac-
tion brought by plaintiifs in 1887 to enforce their claims, defendants pleaded
_ the limitation of 10 years. Rev. St.`Ill. c. 83, § 23, provides that, when an ac·
tion is stayed by statutory prohibition, such time is not part of the time limited "
i for the commencement of actions, and Rev. St. U. S, § 5105, prohibits a cred-.
itor who has proved his claim to maintain suit pending the proceedings inbank-
ruptcy, and provides that suchcreditor shall not be heldto have waived his
right of action “where a discharge has been refused, orithe bankruptcy pro-
ceedin gs determined without a discharge. " Held, that plaintiifs were entitled .
to maintain their action against defendants. ‘
V On Demurrer. “ A · ,
~L;lH. Bcutellgfor plaintiffs. T A
Moses ·&· Newman`, for defendants. - ·
.BLODGETT,. J. This is a demurrer to plaintiEi`s’ second replication to
defendants’ third plea. *T~he third plea is that the causes of action, set
out in the second, third, and ninth counts of the declaration did not ac-