Ing v. Brown
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The defendant, Jesse Brown, executed a bill of sale on the 13th of December, 1847, conveying to the defendant, Robert Brannan, all his stock of goods in a certain store in the city of Baltimore, in consideration of §800 paid by the grantor to the grantee.
Read the full summary
[The defendant, Jesse Brown, executed a bill of sale on the 13th of December, 1847, conveying to the defendant, Robert Brannan, all his stock of goods in a certain store in the city of Baltimore, in consideration of §800 paid by the grantor to the grantee. An affidavit was made to this conveyance by Brown, the grantor, that he received the full sum of money set forth therein, and purported to have been, paid to him by Brannan, the grantee, on the 11th of April, 1847. A similar conveyance was made by the same party, of the same property, to cure the defect of the first deed, in that the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :
It being admitted in the answer of Brannan, that his purpose in taking the bill of sale of the 13th of December, 1847, was to obtain a security for money loaned and to be loaned the grantor, I am of opinion that though the instrument is absolute on its face, it must be considered as a mortgage. Dougherty vs. McColgan, 6 G. & J., 275.
Being a mortgage in contemplation of equity, it has been insisted that no effect can be given to it, and the grantee must lose the benefit of the security, by reason of the provision contained in the 2d section of the Act of 1825, ch. 203. But an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Alexander v. GhiselinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1847
- Dougherty v. McColganCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Horsey v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
- Scaplen v. BlanchardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Goldsborough v. TinsleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1921