Haynes v. Ledyard

Decided November 10, 1880

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1880-11-10

<p> Agreement to pay proceeds of farm to the mortgagee. </p> <p>A contract reciting that one of the parties holds mortgages on the lands and personalty of the other, in consideration of which the latter assigns to him the net proceeds of the farm, which he promises to apply upon the mortgages, is not itself a chattel mortgage or similar security, and cannot be shown to be by parol evidence; but it can be shown to be fraudulent.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1885

1 state decisions

Relies on Haynes v. Ledyard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1880-11-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, J.

¶1This case, which was before us at the January term, 1876, and reported in 33 Mich. 319, now comes up again on questions which we cannot distinguish from those before decided.

¶2 *622The court below ruled in accordance with our decision as there reported that the instrument there set forth at length was not a chattel mortgage or any security of the same or similar character, and could not be made out as such by parol evidence ; but that whatever its nature, it could be shown to have been fraudulent.

¶3As we have already so decided we do not think it proper to do more than affirm the judgment with costs.

The other Justices concurred.