Case Name: Charles C. Paine v. Jacob French and John Ford
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1829-12
Citations: 4 Ohio 290
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Charles C. Paine v. Jacob French and John Ford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 4
Pages: 290–298

Head Matter:
*Charles C. Paine v. Jacob French and John Ford.
Assignment of debt secured by mortgage, and delivery of mortgage deed, good transfer of the mortgage.
Before the act of 1818, seal of justice was not required to an acknowledgment of deed, except in a case of feme covert.
Holder of a recorded mortgage does not act fraudulently, if he prepare, as counsel, a subsequent mortgage and remain silent as to his own.
Allegations and proofs must correspond.
This was a suit in chancery, to subject to sale certain mortgaged •premises, and was reserved from the county of Geauga. The bill was filed by Charles C. Paine, as administrator, with the will annexed, of Samuel W. Phelps, and set forth that' on June 8, 1818, the defendant French, who then owned the premises in controversy, mortgaged the same to one Daniel S. Coit, to secure the payment of five hundred dollars, which mortgage was duly re■corded, and afterward, on May 18, 1819, was duly assigned by Coit to the defendant Ford. This assignment was also duly recorded. On September 27, 1814, .French mortgaged the same lands to one Gaius Pease, to secure the payment of a note of the same date, for the sum of nine hundred and ninety-seven dollars and twenty-nine cents, payable in one year. This mortgage was recorded September 29, 1814; but there was no seal attached to the certificate of acknowledgment by the justice of the peace. -On November 11, 1814, Pease assigned his mortgage to Phelps, of which assignment French had notice, and'on January 20, 1816, paid Phelps upon the mortgage four hundred and fifty dollars. On November 16,1818, French conveyed the lands in controversy, with general warranty, to Ford; the deed was recorded on December 18,1818, and was absolute in its terms, but intended merely as security for advances made by Ford. On March 19, 1827, French gave Ford a quitclaim deed for the same premises, under which Ford took possession, French having always occupied previous to that time. Phelps died on July 1, 1826. The complainant prayed that the mortgaged premises might be sold, subject to Ooit’s mortgage, and the proceeds applied to the payment of the .mortgage assigned by Pease to Phelps.
The defendant, Ford, answered, and denied all knowledge of the note and supposed mortgage given by French to Pease, but admitted that after the deed to himself, of November 16, 1818, he had heard of said supposed mortgage, but insisted *that it could [819 not operate as notice, in consequence of the want of a seal to the acknowledgment. He also denied all notice of the supposed mortgage at the time he took the assignment of Coit’s mortgage. He further alleged, that on November 16, 1818, he purchased the premises of French for the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars, and was at that time entirely ignorant of any mortgage on the same, except Coit’s mortgage; that Phelps had full knowledge of this purchase, and the payment of the consideration money; that this defendant and French applied to Phelps to draw the deed, who did so; and was not only silent as to any claim he might have on the land, but told defendant that there was no mortgage or other lien on the same, except Coit’s mortgage. This defendant neither admitted nor denied that the deed of November 16, 1818, was intended to secure advances made by him to French.
The defendant, French, admitted all the material allegations in the bill, and stated further, that at or just before the time of the execution of the deed of November 16, 1818, he gave Ford notice of the mortgage to Pease, and also stated that the deed was intended only as security for advances, and that Ford gave him an instrument of writing to that effect.
It appeared from the exhibits and testimony, that the note given by French to Pease for nine hundred and ninety-seven dollars and twenty-nine cents, was assigned by Pease to Phelps, by an indorsement on the back of the note; but there was no actual assignment of the mortgage, which was given to secure the note. It was admitted that the deed of November 16, 1818, was drawn by Phelps, and in his own handwriting. It was also in proof, that some time in the spring, or in the month of June, 1826, Phelps told the witness that he had advised Ford to give French further time to pay his debt, and assigned as a reason that Ford had a clear title to the farm, or that there was no claim on the land except Ford’s; and that there was an agreement between French and Ford, giving further time to pay, which was written by Phelps, but was afterward canceled.
*Phekps, for the complainant.
Webb, for defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court :
1. It seems to be settled law, that an assignment of a note in writing, and delivery of the mortgaged deed, transfers all the rights secured by the mortgage. 1 Johns. 580; 3 Johns. Cas. 322; 2 Sw. Dig. 110; 4 Johns. 41; 1 Gallison, 155; 1 Ohio, 320.
2. Is the mortgage to Pease defective, for want of a seal to the acknowledgment of the justice of the peace? No seal, or other ceremony, in the acknowledgment of deeds, executed by a, man, or by an unmarried woman, was required by any law of this state, until the statute of 1819. Vol. xvi. 192. The law adopted from Pennsylvania, in 1795, required that all deeds executed by husband and wife should be acknowledged in a certain manner, and such acknowledgment should be certified, upon the deed, under the hand and seal of the judge, or justice of the peace.
This distinction between deeds executed by husband and wife, and other deeds, was maintained in the statutes of 1802 and 1805, and it was not till 1818 that the distinction was annulled,.and a seal required to the acknowledgment of all deeds.
The seal, and other ceremonies, in the acknowledgment of deeds by husband and wife, were doubtless intended to protect the rights of married women; and were originally introduced into our law to supply the place of the common law formalities, in the conveyance of real estate by femes covert.
The mortgage in question having been executed in 1814, by French alone, no seal was required to the acknowledgment; it was, therefore, well recorded, and conveyed notice to Ford.
3. The mortgage having been duly recorded, Ford's subsequent purchasefwas necessarily subject to the rights of the mortgagee,, or his assignee, unless there was such a fraudulent suppression of the truth, or suggestion of falsehood, by *Phelps, as to authorize a court of equity to postpone or annul his mortgage. If, at the time of Ford's advancement or purchase, Phelps denied, or stood by, and when questioned, concealed his own title, he practiced a fraud, and has no right against Ford. 4 Johns. Ch. 65.
Ford, in his answer, alleges that Phelps drew up the deed, and was not only silent as to his own claim, but asserted that there was no mortgage or other lien on the land, except Coit's mortgage. This allegation is not responsive to any charge contained in the bill, but is new and distinct matter, set up in the answer, to avoid a pre-existing right in Phelps, and must therefore be proved. Z Johns. Ch. 62; 2 Vesey, 587; 1 Johns. 580. It is agreed between the parties, that Phelps drew up the deed from French to Ford; but this circumstance neither proves nor disproves the charge of fraud. It is not sufficient to postpone a prior mortgage, that the mortgagee assisted in the execution of a second mortgage; but it must appear affirmatively, that the first mortgagee denied or fraudulently concealed his title. The mortgage of Phelps being duly recorded, was notice to all the world, and the fact that he acted as a scrivener in drafting a subsequent mortgage, can not, per se, operate as a forfeiture of his rights. There is no evidence that Phelps, at the time, either concealed his title or denied its existence.
The only testimony in the cause is the deposition of the younger Ford, and that refers exclusively to a transaction in 1826, a few days before the death of Phelps, and nearly eight years after Ford's purchase or advancement. This testimony, taken in its strongest sense, amounts to no more than an admission by Phelps that the mortgage money had been paid. But Ford, by his pleadings, does not rest his rights-upon this ground. He does not pretend, in his .answer, that the mortgage was paid in 1826, or at any other time, but insists that Phelps shall be postponed, by reason of the alleged fraud practiced in 1818. His proof does not correspond with, or support his allegations. A defendant can not set up one defense in his answer, and upon the final hearing rely upon another. His allegations and his proofs must correspond.
Decree for complainant.