Opinion by
This action was instituted by a scire facias sur mortgage. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant (as it did also in a former trial of the same action). Plaintiff made a motion for judgment n. o. v. which was granted. The court also entered a decree that “no execution issue on the judgment until the expiration of six months from the date of the decree.” This appeal follоwed.
The mortgage on which the writ issued was given by Antonio Masciantonio and his wife, Giuditta, to two mortgagees bearing respeсtively the same names as the mortgagors. The mortgage was for $3,900 and was dated March 19, 1925, and was payable in three yeаrs from date with interest at 6%, payable semi-annually. The only survivor of the mortgagors and mortgagees, the husband mortgagor, latеr married Mary Masciantonio, named in these proceedings as terre tenant. The plaintiff herein is the executrix of the estate of the wife mortgagee. The sum claimed was $3,200 with interest from September 14, 1939.
The defense to the scire faciаs sur mortgage is a written agreement under seal, dated July 27, 1935, between Giuditta Masciantonio, surviving mortgagee, party of the first pаrt, and Antonio Masciantonio, surviving mortgagor and his second wife, Mary Masciantonio, as parties of the second part, and made binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of Giuditta Masciantonio. This agreement recited, inter alia, the mortgagor’s “difficulties in making payment of the principal owing to the mortgagees, . . . and the desire of the surviving mortgagee, that the mortgagor *430 . . . should not lose said property but that he should be permitted to make payment of the principal sum owing as soon as he is able.” Paragraph 3 of this agreement on which the defense relies reads as follows: “In the event as aforesaid of the death of the said Giuditta Masciantonio before the said principal sum of Three Thousand Two Hundred ($3,200.00) Dollars, with interest from March 14, 1935, is paid, then as long as Antonio Masciantonio, the mortgagor, and/or Mary Masciantoniо, his wife, their heirs or assigns, shall continue to pay interest at the rate of Three ,(3%) Per Cent per annum on the balance оf the said principal debt, in accordance with the terms hereinabove set forth, then the said mortgage shall not be considered in default, neither can the holder or holders of said mortgage, the heirs, executors, administrators or assigns of Giuditta Masciantonio proceed to foreclose the same, either by foreclosing on the mortgage or on the bond accompanying said mortgage as long as such interest is paid.” It is conceded that this agreement is to be construed as a part of the mortgage itself. The court below said: “Perusal of the whole agreement clearly indicates that the debt was to be paid some time”; and it held that that meant within a reasonable time and that since the mortgage was “over 17 years old” and that “almost seven years” had elapsed since the execution of the supplementary agreement of July 27, 1935, the debt had not been paid in a reasonable time and plaintiff was therefore entitled to judgment.
There is a line of casеs which hold that when no time is fixed for the payment of a debt, the debt is payable on demand and the right to enforce it aсcrues immediately. Three of these cases are
Rhone, Trustee, v. Keystone Coal Co.,
In the whereas clause of the agreement it is declared that “it is the desire of the mortgаgees . . . that the mortgagor . . . should not lose the property but that he should be permitted to make payment of the prinсipal sum owing as soon as he is able”. While this clause indicates that the mortgagees expected the mortgagors to pay the debt when they would be able to do so, it left them to be the sole judge of their ability to pay it. The agreement pleaded reduced the mortgagors’ obligation to a moral one, as was the case in
Nelson v. Von Bonnhorst,
Judgment reversed and is here entered for the defendant on the verdict.