MORTGAGE DEBTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18631, 12 February 1924, Page 11

MORTGAGE DEBTS.

Sir,—Does "Legal Luminary" agree with Ij-thc opinion of the "prominent commercial Wye." that when th« moratorium is &! lifted "the Courts are going to he full of |fr people escaoing their liabilities behind Ihe ttitute of limitations, which extinguishes debt after six years," thi3 statement im- > plying that & mortgagor would have his aibility cancelled for him ? The avowed ;|i indention of my first letter "was to remove from the mind of any mortgagor this false a' impression, and I said "the statute of limitations does not extinguish the liability ft of the mortgagor until 20 years have •lapsed." In his letter of reply, "Legal §'' Luminary" says, inter alia: "If, however, the mortgagor has covenanted by the "• mortgage deed to pay, the limit time for I action on the covenant will be 20 years. The other remedy is against the land/, } which in not extinguished until after 20 I" years have elapsed," and in the case of : i . "land under the Land Transfer Act, it §j las been held that the mortgagee's res£jv medies against the mortgaged land were v not extinguished by the'lapse of the statu'f toy period of 20 years," I claimed that these' facts confirmed by opinion. "Legal Luminary" can scarcely credit that "an 1 V eminent firm of solicitors is prepared to ' vouch for the entire correctness of Mr. • ; Themes' statement," but that firm author, ises me again to state "that the remedy '■y c! a mortgagee against a mortgagor does Dot lapse under 20 years." I fail to see .. '■ anything in the arguments "Legal Luminary" has produced which prove anything to the contrary. J. ThOENES^ s * 231, Parnell Roar.