5 Smith & H. 53 - Prichard Bros. v. Causey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is generally held that a vendor’s hen is superior to that of a mechanic, and, upon principle, we think this is true whether the vendor executes a bond for title, or a deed retaining a hen on its face, or executes a joint instrument with his vendee, by which he conveys title to the vendee and the latter, in turn, conveys the property by mortgage or deed of trust to secure the purchase money, or where, as in these causes, contemporaneous with the delivery of the deed, the vendee delivers a deed of trust or mortgage to secure the unpaid purchase money. They all have the same object, constitute but one transaction, and vest in the vendee the same interest. In neither case has the vendee ever been vested with an absolute title, but, whatever method is adopted, he takes the land subject to the vendors’ lien, and his creditors can obtain no greater interest than he possesses. This view is well supported by the authorities. In 40 C.J., 296, it is said: “It is well settled that, where a person not the owner of the property, but in possession thereof under a contact of sale or otherwise, makes improvements thereon and subsequently receives a deed of the property, and at the same time executes and delivers to the vendor a purchase-money mortgage, such mortgage is prior to mechanics’ hens arising out of the improvements.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guffey v. Creutzinger

2. “Cases involving rights under mortgages to secure purchase money for land have been very fruitful in illustration of the general doctrine that contemporaneous instruments are to be given effect as parts of one and the same transaction. [[Image here]] Familiar as the principle is, however, it is not to be applied beyond its scope. To be operative as parts of a single transaction, the different instruments must take effect at the same time. Simultaneity is absolutely essential in every instance. [[Image here]] As to this, Jones observes: “A mortgage for purchase money, to be entitled to preference, must be executed simultaneously with the deed of conveyance from the vendor. If an interval of time is left between the transactions, during which the interest of the purchaser is liable to be seized on execution upon the judgment, this preference is lost, and the judgment is entitled to priority. If the instruments are delivered at the same time, it does not matter that they were executed on different days, because they take effect only from the delivery.” 1 Jones on Mort., Sec. 469.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guffey v. Creutzinger