¶1Dill to redeem lands. Bill dismissed.
¶2The bill alleged that certain absolute deeds were intended as mortgages. The answer denied the allegations of the bill in that regard.
¶3The proof was very conflicting — leaving the question of fact in uncertainty.
¶4Under such a state of facts, the bill was rightly dismissed. The rule of law is, that to give a written instrument an effect different from what its language plainly imports, the proof must- be clear. Linn v. Barkey, 7 Ind. R. 69. — 4 Blackf. 67. This case was not brought within the rule.
¶5The judgment below is affirmed with costs.