Case Name: Heirs of Singleton v. Dicey Kelly & Dicey Kelly, Tutrix
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1855-07
Citations: 11 La. Ann. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: Heirs of Singleton v. Dicey Kelly & Dicey Kelly, Tutrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Heirs of Singleton v. Dicey Kelly & Dicey Kelly, Tutrix.
Construction of a written instrument purporting to transfer title to slaves, executed in Mississippi, containing the following clause: “ The condition of the above bill of sale is such that, whereas, the said Ichabod Kelly has paid and furnished the said Vincent Si/ngleton divers sums of money which, when fully paid by the said Singleton to the said Kelly, will render this bill of sale null and void; and, provided, further, that should the said Singleton die without refunding said Kelly said sum of money, then and in that case, the said Ichabod Kelly, his heirs or assigns, is hereby and forever exonorated from any further liability for any further sum or sums of money to the said Vincent JS. Singleton, his heirs or assigns. But that the absolute right and title of said negroes shall fully vest in the said Ichabod Kelly, his heirs and assigns, forever.”
Held: that it is, to all intents and purposes, an act of sale defeasible upon the performance of certain acts by the grantor in his lifetime. Even were it to be considered in the nature of a mortgage, it would have conveyed the legal title under the law of the place where the contract was made. And before the mortgager could have exercised his equity of redemption, he would have been obliged to tender a full discharge of the debt for which the security was given.
Mgrriok, 0. JM dissenting. The instrument is a deed of trust to secure the payment of a sum of money.
APPEAL from the District Court of the parish'of Morehouse, Barry, J.
Matthews, for plaintiffand appellant. Boberlson and Todd, for defendant.

Opinion:
Spofford, J.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled. The consolidated cases in which the appeal was taken, are identified by the petition and order of appeal, and the bond is given in favor of the proper party, both in her individual and representative capacities. The pleadings disclose the names of the minors to whom she is tutrix, and the bond would inure to their benefit.
Upon the merits, the cause must be decided by the construction given to the written instrument executed in Mississippi, by the aneester of the plaintiffs, on the 17th December, 1845. The instrument must speak for itself, unaided by parol evidence. It is, to all intents, an.aet of sale with a condition that it shall be defeasible upon the performance of certain acts by the grantor in his lifetime. So fiir'as appears, the grantor died without performing the acts, and the deed thus becomes absolute. Indeed, the plaintiffs, heirs of the grantor, have not pleaded that their ancestor ever paid to the grantee the moneys which were necessary to operate a defeasance of the deed. ¿
They argue that the act was a pledge and not a sale; and that, neither at its date nor at the death of their ancestor did it convey any title to the defendant's author. There were all the requisites of a sale; a thing, a stipulated price, and a consent. Even were it to be considered in the nature of a mortgage, it would have conveyed the legal title under the law of the place where the contract was made. And, before the mortgagor could have exercised his equity of redemption, he would have been obliged to tender a full discharge of the debt for which the security was given, a tender which has not been made. There is nothing to show that the contract was an antichresis made in contemplation of the law of Louisiana, whither the contracting parties subsequently removed.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed with costs.