Case ID: miss_18/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice ThacheR", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rufus Carter et al. vs. William T. Burris.
    A bill of sale of a slave absolute on its face may be shown by parol proof to be a mere mortgage for the security of money due by the vendor to the vendee.
    The admission of the vendee that an absolute bill of sale of a slave held by him was not absolute, but the vendor was to have the slave when he paid the vendee the amount due him, coupled with the facts that the vendee did not take possession of the slave until two years after the date of the bill of sale ; and that the vendor paid the vendee a part of the sum due him, after the execution of the bill of sale, was held sufficient to show that such bill of sale was a mere mortgage for the payment of the money due by the vendor to the vendee.
    
      On appeal from, the district chancery court at Holly Springs; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor.
    The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Buckner and Moore, for appellants,
    cited Lane v. Dickersen, 10 Yerg. R. 373; Grider v. Graham, 4 Bibb, 70; Eq. Dig. 567; McDonald v. Neilson, 2 Cow. 139 ; Mason v. Baker, 1 A. K. Marsh. 209 ; Eq. Dig. 590.
    
      William and William G. Thompson^n the same side.
    
      McNutt and Paxton, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

Burris filed his bill in the vice-chancery court, in which he charged that in 1839 he became indebted to William Carter in the sum of $269.10, for which amount he made, and gave Carter his promissory note; and that in May, 1843, in order to secure Carter for the payment of the note, and at his request he executed to him a bill of sale of a slave valued at $600, the said Carter making his promissory note to Burris for the difference in the amount, after deducting from the estimated value of the slave the amount of the promissory note of Burris, together with the interest accrued thereon. The bill charged further, that the bill of sale, although absolute upon its face, was in reality designed to be but a mortgage, and that Carter delivered to Burris the promissory note of Burris, to be credited, from time to time, by any payments made by Burris. The bill was filed by Burris to redeem the slave, and it was so decreed in the vice-chancery court.

The question is as to the bill of sale, whether it was absolute or designed as a mortgage only.

The evidence of the numerous witnesses tends most strongly to show that the sale was not absolute, and to confirm the ground assumed in the bill. Hayden testifies that “ Carter told him that the sale was not absolute, but that Burris was to have the slave when he paid the amount due Carter.” Again, Carter did not take possession of the slave until 1845, and then only, as the proof seems to exhibit, as hired from Burris. And, again, sometime after the execution of the bill of sale, Burris paid Carter the sum of $40, 'which, was credited on the note of Burris in the handwriting of Carter. The evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances occurring in the case sufficiently substantiate the allegations of the bill.

Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.