Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-20
Woods vs.. Thompson.

Weeds Thompson.
The Chancellor, in his decree in this cause held
the deed Of the 2jh Of March, 1882 from complain
defendant, for the lot ia controversy, though
in form an absolute deed, was intended only AS
a mortgage between the psrties-and that il
should he allowed TO stand Oay q security for
debt and legal interest due from complainant to
defendant.
In this decree we think the Chancellor was right,
and affirm it.
The prominent facts as shown, in this record are
that on the lth of January, 1915, the defen liant
loaned TO complainant 81 ,62S.9I, for which the
said Woods executed to said Thompson his prOnis-
sorry Do:e Of tnat date due four months after date
and 10 secure It's payment, gave deed OF trust to
A. Y. 5. Lindsey part Of said lot, ihs rate OF
Interest agreed upon for said land, being ten per
cent per snnum, which vas paid from Ine 10 time,
by complainant TO defendant.
That afterwards and on the 18th Of December,
ls47, the defendant loaned 10 the complainant the
further sum o: 81 SUO00, at the same rate of in-
terest and complainant, on that day. executed to
aim for said sum payable year after da e,
and as further security for the payment Of said
sum, made deed OF trust to James Whit worth
upon the said iot-and complainant, from time o
time paid defendant the ten per cent per in>
terest ON said last mentioned loan.
These deeds both contained power Of sale in de-
fault of payment by the complainant al the matur-
ty Of ihe 10 es.
III 1uFtneF Hppe1TS lnaL Oh tue ZOth q Marc0,
1852 The complainant applied TO the defendant for
further lOan of 500 90, at the same rate Of in
terest and that the was then advanced to him
by the Geferdant; and that at the same lime the
al s ,luie deed aforesaid was executed
The consideration recited IN the deed is 50 923
and is shown to hive been made up of he 81 63 81
81 500 co. and 81 $40 o. and Ihe uni aid balance of
interes-Ritb interest eoualed dJRn TO the lst day
Of January, 1858.
rhe reason gwen in the answer Of the defendant
for computing the debt to the 1st day Of January
after the deed is, th,t he not to have the pos
session OF the lot till thai time, that in the
Intermediate time complainant was 10 have the
rents, and rebuild, at his own cost a stable which
had been burned down
| The proof shows, that the complainant did re-
build the stable at his cost except that the de-
fendant paid $1,000 part ofis cost. But it also
! shows that defendant took possession Of the lOt
| during the year 1852, and received most Of the
rents Of that ear, upon u at part of lot embrace
| log the stable. 1t does not appear who received
the rents of the residue OF tie lot for that year.
James WhitworI b, who drew the Decd states it as
| his impres ion, that few days, or . day or two.
before the deed was executed the 25 II Of March,
| 1852 complainant and defendant came to his office
and vent out INTO the backI oom and came out talk
! ing about settlement Of this debt, aud requested
| him 10 write deed absolute on its faoe-but that
! complainant, if he able. was to have the right
In some Way-by paying tbs debt with the ten
per cent per abnum TO redeem the property At some
| year or twO-but the precise time Oh At was to be
| gwen, he did not remember. That upon making
the abatement to him. be told them it would simply
be mortgage, and they would BE- in no better