Court Opinion

ID: 9826371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:49:32.203233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:01.757041
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fraser:
I concur with Mr. Justice Cothran in result only.
It is well known law that a contract, whatever may be its form, if intended as a security for a debt, is in law a mortgage. It is equally true that the nature of a contract is fixed at the time of its execution. When the escrow was placed in the hands of the bank, its nature was fixed. When the escrow was delivered to the bank, it was to be held to await the payment or nonpayment of the debt. The transaction, as a whole, was intended to secure the debt. The fate of the deed depended upon the payment of the debt. To my mind, it is clear that the deed was security for the debt, and therefore a mortgage. The freedom to contract is not limitless. Men are free to contract only within the limits set by the law. It has been *319truly said that the State is a party to all contracts and those contracts are void to which the State does not consent. The State, through .its laws, declares that a deed, however absolute its terms may be, is to be taken only as a mortgage, if intended as security for a debt.
There is another principle of law that I think controls this case. The law recognizes the fact that, although a right may exist in favor of certain parties, yet there are cases in which it would be inequitable and unjust to allow it to control. That gives rise to what is known as the law of estoppel. The law of estoppel forbids the tenant to dispute the title of his landlord. In the case at bar, the plaintiff had acknowledged for years that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between him and the defendant. I think it would be inequitable and unjust to allow him now, after these repeated acknowledgments, to repudiate that relation. I think the Court of equity should refuse its aid in working what would now be a great injustice. I think the plaintiff is now estopped from setting up his title.
For these reasons, I concur in result with Mr. Justice Cothran.
Mr. Justice Watts concurs.