Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 N.C. 88

Mason v. . Hearne

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 5, 1852

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1852-12-05

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Stanly county, at Fall Term, 1852. The plaintiff by her bill, filed 11th February, 1851, alleges that several years since, her father, John Mason, now deceased, contracted with one Henry Davis for the purchase of a small tract of land, at the price of fifty dollars.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1939

2 state decisions

10185218601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Pearson, J.

¶1 The plaintiff is entitled to the relief she asks for. The agreement in writing, signed by the defendant, shows upon its face that the real intention of the parties in the transaction was to create merely a security ; and for this purpose the legal title was conveyed to the defendant, in trust to secure the repayment of the thirty dollars, with interest, and then in trust to convey to the plaintiff. Such being the intention of the parties, time is not of the essence of the contract in this Court,- which is the principle upon which the Court allows an equity of redemption, after the estate at law has become absolute, in all cases where the intention was to create merely a security.

¶2 The defendant faintly denies that the deed to him was intended as a security, and insists upon the fact that his agreement is in the form of a condition; and that the condition has not been complied with, by a payment of the money, within the time fixed *91 on. That is true ; but in all mortgages, the form is that of an estate to be void upon condition of the payment of money at a fixed day. This Court regards not the form, whenever the real intention was merely to secure the payment of money, and will, upon the ground of the intention, relieve against the forfeiture of conditions and penalties. The intention that the conveyance should only operate as a security is conclusively established, not only upon the face of the agreement, but by all the other facts and circumstances of the transaction.

¶3 There must be a reference to the Master. In taking the account, the plaintiff will be entitled to credit for the amount paid by her, and also for the profits of the land since the defendant has been in possession, including the amount collected by him under his claim of rent.

¶4 Per Ctjuiam. Decree accordingly.

/45/nc/88 · .json · Public domain