AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion of Mr. VIEHE, his bill [S. 195] to provide for the redemption of real estate sold on execution, and to provide for deeds of conveyance in such cases, was read, as was also a majority and minority report recommending the adoption of a substitute.
Mr. REEVE moved to concur in the minority report, and proceeded to picture the superior provisions of the substitute over the original bill. This is one of the most important bills of the session. The law on this subject probably affects more property in the State adversely than any other law in force on the statute book.
Mr. VIEHE desired to answer some objections to his original bill, the provisions of which are mostly taken from the laws of New York and Illinois; and also to point out some defects in the substitute.
page: 57[View Page 57]Mr. HARRIS said it was apparent some amendment ought to be made to the present redemption law, which evidently was made to cover some special cases; and like such kind of legislation, after serving its purpose, is usually not of much value.
The minority report was rejected.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered an amendment to the majority report, to apply where the rental value exceeds a $100 a year, providing for the appointment of a receiver where the party in possession is not responsible, etc.
Mr. VIEHE opposed the amendment, thinking it would so load down the bill that its consideration might as well be stopped if the amendment be adopted.
Mr. LANGDON also opposed this amendment. This is no time for so stringent a law--and one which would oppress those least able to bear up under its operations.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. REEVE moved to amend so that each person redeeming shall be subrogated to all the rights of the original judgment plaintiff, &c.
Mr. VIEHE insisted tins amendment would destroy the harmony and consistency of the bill.
Mr. REEVE contended that his amendment did not interfere with the harmony or symmetry of the bill.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BRISCOE moved to extend the time of redemption from one to two years.
Mr. VIEHE objected.
The motion was lost.
On Mr. MENZIES' motion a proviso was added to section 3, "that nothing herein shall apply to any mortgagee or junior judgment 'creditor not made a party to the proceedings under which, the property was sold."
On motion of Mr. HARRIS, under the operations of the previous question demanded by him, the bill was considered as engrossed, read the third time, and passed the Senate by yeas 38, nays 3.
On motion by Mr. HEFRON the bill [H. R. 464] relating to warehouse receipts, etc., was read the first time and under a dispensation the second (by title only) and third times, and finally passed by yeas 41, nays 1.
On motion, by Mr. MAJOR the bill [H. R. 22] to provide for exempting property from attachment and sale on execution in certain cases, was taken up.
Mr. OLDS preferred a homestead act, but at this stage of the session he was willing to take this bill, as it is probably the only one that can be got through.
Mr. REEVE referred to the pending question at the time the bill was laid before the Senate, (See these reports of March 10, p. m ) being on the substitute exempting a homestead of 40 acres.
Mr. HEFRON regarded the substitute as manifestly unjust, and made a few remarks in opposition thereto. When he had concluded--
The Senate adjourned.
