Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/274

 . in     l.. a.id¥;al;ot.;;;‘ rthieiic ersouth ¤»thrlee   1 land    D.  thence west,~along said Elfeltsnorth boundary line, one hung, rdred seventy.—nine and 3:6-100 feet to his northwest corrie;;?,;‘o_ thence south, along the said G. D. iElfelt’s west boundary line; to the Mississippi river; thence south-westerly up said river, to the south—·we~st corner of said lot four, (4;) thence northtf to the north—westerly corner of said lot four, (egg;) thence east. to the place of lJG,Q)`1I1I111Tlg——-GO11‘b&l11lDg nineteen and onedialff (19};) acres of land, more or less. . On December 11, 187 8, the plaintiff entered into a conti- tract for the sale of the mortgaged property to the St. Pauli & Sioux. Gity Railroad Company at the agreed sum of E{t12,25dV -—-@$1,000 cash, and the residue payable in QU days-—the· rail—; road company reserving the right to apply such an amount of the purchase money   may be necessary to pay all mort·— gage or other liens upon the property, and all taxes assessed thereon, save and except the taxes for 1878, which the railroad company were to pay; Theamount of purchase money thus reserved would embrace the defendants mort-- gagemainouirlniiig, principal and interest, at the date of the contract tozabout §}ta,580-—-aricl pay the taxes   some $$900 or $$1,200) then delinquent. The plaintiff also received upon his contract, in addition to the $1,000 therein provided, $$2,000 in cash, upon which, as he says, interest was to be paid by him, at the rate of 10 per cent.; until the balance of the purchase price was due. · it , The plaintiff, within 10 days after the sale of the property was agreed upon, went to Philadelphia and called upon the defendant,.about December 22, 1878, for the purpose of mak-- ing some arrangement in reference to the mortgagerl  y It aprpears the defendant had been alarmed about the delinquent taxes upon the property, and its forfeiture to the state for non—payment, and had telegraphed the plaintiff about them in October, a few weeks previous to the sale of the land by him, and at this meeting the plaintiff complained that the defendant was unnecessarily exercised in regard to the taxes, and then made a proposition to him for settlement, and at a

�