ALFRED C. DOWNS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOSEPH KISSAM
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A dispute arose over ownership of slaves that were seized under execution on a debt owed by James J. Chewning, with the plaintiff claiming superior title based on a prior mortgage. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment, holding that a mortgage securing more property than necessary to satisfy the debt is not presumptively fraudulent merely because it covers excess property, as mortgages are valid security instruments regardless of whether they encumber more collateral than the debt requires.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error brings before us the judgment of the Circuit Court, held by the District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi.
An execution having been levied on certain slaves as the property of one James J. Chewning, at the instance of the defendant in error, which slaves were claimed by the plaintiff in error, an issue was joined, under the laws of Mississippi, to try the right of property. On the trial, a mortgage was given in evidence, executed by Chewning in 1839, long prior to the levy, to secure to the Railroad Bank of Vicksburg a debt of $ 130,000. This mortgage embraced all the slaves levied on, except one. Other mortgages were given' in evidence, executed by Chewning, to secure the payment of several other debts.
Oh the trial, the Circuit Court instructed the jury, that if “any one of the mortgages conveyed more property than would be sufficient to secuve the debt provided for in the mortgage, such mortgage was fraudulent,” and that the fact of more property being conveyed as aforesaid was a circumstance from which the jury might presume fraud.
This instruction is erroneous. It is no badge of fraud for a mortgage, which is a mere security, to cover more property than will secure the debt due. Any creditor may pay the mortgage debt, and proceed against the property; or he may subject it to the payment of his debt, by other modes of proceeding.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to award a venire facies de novo.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1895)…be in itself indicative of fraud, since the property conveyed was a stock of goods of somewhat uncertain value, and when sold realized but little more than was necessary to pay off the mortgages. Indeed, this court held directly in Downs v. Kissam, 10 How. 102, 108, that it was not even a badge of fraud that a mortgage was made to cover more property than would secure the debt due. [*642] The fact that goods were spirited away from the store on Sunday night would undoubtedly assume a serious importance we…
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Cranch 309 (U.S. 1803)
- Wheaton v. Sexton's Lessee, 4 Wheat. 503 (U.S. 1819)