Court Opinion

ID: 8635440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:44:25.347225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:54.659753
License: Public Domain

STORY, Circuit Justice.
My opinion is, that upon the facts, as argued, there has been no extinguishment or satisfaction of the mortgage sued on. If the goods delivered were in compliance with the original contract, entered into between Dean and J. B. Osborne, and on account or the mortgage, (which as a matter of fact must be left to the jury,) then the mortgage is a valid security upon an executed consideration. If the goods were not so delivered, then J. B. Osborne is still liable on his contract, and the mortgage is valid, as founded upon an executory contract, still subsisting and binding between the. parties. In the latter view, the giving of the new notes would be wholly immaterial, since they would be in payment for other goods. But the presumption is so strong, that the goods were furnished under the original contract, that it seems difficult to resist it. Taking the fact to be so, how can the new negotiable notes operate as an extinguishment of the debt on account? That debt, at the time when these notes were given, had been assigned to assignees by the partners, to whom it was due. The assignees were ignorant of and not parties to the arrangement, by which they were received. Dean knew of the failure and assignment, and consequently knew, that J. B. Osborne had no longer any authority to extinguish, or receive payment of the debt, or to receive negotiable notes for it. These notes were, therefore, given without consideration. The mortgage given to J. B. Osborne was undoubtedly given in trust for the benefit of the partners, and not for J. B. Osborne alone. Indeed, it does not appear, that it was the intention of the parties to the arrangement itself, that the mortgage should be extinguished; or that it should no longer be a security for the debt. The inference from the •acts of the parties is the other way; for it was not cancelled or surrendered. They may have intended only to substitute a definite time for the payment of the debts for an indefinite time; a certain, for an uncertain credit; a protection of Dean from suit for nine and twelve months; and that the mortgage should still stand security for the debt. I will leave the facts to the jury, if the counsel wishes it: but supposing the facts to be, as I have assumed them to be, I am of opinion, that there was no extinguishment of the mortgage in point of law.
The counsel for the tenants then consented, that the latter should be defaulted, which was done accordingly.