22 FEDERAL REPORTER �the loan. But it did not of itself constitute a contract. No- body was bound by it, and there was no contract made until the delivery of the money and papers on Monday. Besides, the papers being dated on the 8th, which was a week-day, and the plaintiflf having no reason to suppose they were not executed on that day, the defendants are undoubtedly es- topped from showing that they were really execited on another day, which was Sunday, because such a proceeding would operate as a gross fraud upon an innocent party. �There is only one other question, which is whether the piaintifi is entitled to a foreclosure for the entire amount of principal and interest, the principal not being due yet by the terras of the mortgage. The first six months' interest fell due on December, 1878. It was not paid, nor has any interest ever been paid. But the notice of the plaintiff's option to declare the whole amount due was not served until February 7, 1879, some six weeks after the ten days had elapsed, dur- ing which the defendants might pay the interest before the piaintifi could elect to declare the principal due. I think this was too late, and that the option should have been de- clared at the expiration of ten days, or within a very short and reasonable time thereafter; and that the plaintiff's decree should be for the foreclosure of the mortgage for default in the payment of interest. �Decree of foreclosure for the piaintifi, with costs. ���PECK V. COMSTOCK. �(Circuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin. February 18, 1881.) ���. 1.-. ���1. Tax Deed — Statutk of IinaTATiows — Wisconsin Rev. St. S 1210. The omission of a redtal In a tax deed, under the statutes of Wisconsin, of the prevlous Issue of an Irregular tax deed, does not prevent the runnlng of the statute of limitations. — [Ed. �Demurrer. Suit to set aside Tax Deed. Walter S. Bames, for complainant. John C. Spooner, for defendant. ��� �
