Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ala. 634

Murphy v. Barefield

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1855-06-15

Heard before the Hon. Wade Keyes. The original bill in this case was filed by Sarah Murphy against Joseph Barefield, and alleged the following facts: That on the 2d day of January, 1848, one Duncan W. Murphy, being in possession of two slaves (Bill and Suckey), and being indebted to Mrs. Nancy Harris in the sum of §2,297 60, mortgaged said slaves to her to secure said debt) and a copy of the mortgage, marked “ exhibit A”, is appended to the bill; that Mrs. Harris took…

Relies on McLeod v. Powe · Bogan v. Martin · Pinkard v. Ingersol

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1940

8 state decisions

201855186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RICE, J.

¶1The legal effect of the deed, set forth in exhibit A to the original bill, is, that the transaction between the parties to it, evidenced by its terms, was not a mortgage, but a conditional sale of the slaves by Duncan W. Murphy to Nancy Harris, with the right to re-purchase any or all of them within twelve months from its date, by paying within that period the respective values or prices fixed on them in the deed. — Bogan v. Martin, 8 Ala. 807; McKinstry v. Conly, 12 ib. 678; Goodman v. Grierson, 2 Ball & Beatty’s Ch. R. 274 ; Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch’s R. 237; 1 Powell on Mortgages, 138-39, and notes ; Holmes v. Grant, 8 Paige R. 260; Glover v. Payn, 19 Wend. R. 518; Barrell v. Sabine, 1 Vernon, 268; Robinson v. Cropsey, 6 Paige’s R. 480; Brown v. Dewey, 2 Barb. Sup. Ct. Rep. 28.

¶2Conceding, however, that said deed was intended by the parties to it as a mortgage, and is really a mortgage, it certainly was competent for the parties to this suit, who are not parties to said deed, to make a subsequent contract, which should define and fix their own rights to the property therein mentioned. This is what they have done. The subsequent contract is set forth in the original bill and exhibit B thereto; and must be considered as the ascertainment and adjustment between themselves of their rights to the property therein mentioned, which is the property involved in this suit.' — Pinkard v. Ingersol, 11 Ala. 9; Lightfoot v. Strahan, 7 ib. 444 ; Wallis v. Long, 18 ib. 738; McKinstry v. Conley, 12 ib. 678.

¶3This subsequent contract is not, on its face, a mortgage.— See authorities cited in firs fc paragraph above. The complainant in the original bill does not aver or pretend that it was intended as a mortgage. The parties must abide by its terms. *640There is no averment in the original or cross bill, which authorizes a court of chancery to decree any relief to either party, founded on said subsequent contract. — McLeod v. Powe & Smith, 12 Ala. 9.

¶4The decree on the bill and cross bill must be affirmed ; Sarah Murphy and her surety must pay the costs of her appeal, andBarefield and his surety must pay the costs of his appeal.

/27/ala/634 · .json · Public domain