Desloge v. Ranger

• Decision Date: 31 May 1842
• Citation: 7 Mo. 327
• Parties: DESLOGE & ROZIER v. RANGER, EXECUTRIX.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 Mo. 327

DESLOGE & ROZIER

v.RANGER, EXECUTRIX.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1842.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.

SCOTT & FRISSELL, for Appellants.

BRICKEY & COLE, for Appellee.

NAPTON, J.

This was a bill in chancery brought by Marie T. Ranger, executrix of Lambert Ranger, deceased, for the redemption of a negro girl, conveyed to Desloge & Rozier in 1830. The instrument of conveyance was as follows: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Lambert Ranger, of the county of Washington, and State of Missouri, this twenty-first day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty, for and in consideration of the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, lawful money of the United States, the receipt of which I hereby acknowledge, have bargained, sold, and transferred, and by these presents do bargain, sell, and transfer a certain young negro girl named Marie Louise, warranted sound in her body, unto Firman Desloge and Ferdinand Rozier, their heirs or assigns. And by these presents warrant and defend against all claim whatever the right and title to said negro girl. It is, however, understood between the parties, that the said Ranger, his heirs or assigns, can at any time within the space of two years, redeem the said negro girl, by paying and refunding unto the said Desloge & Rozier the above sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, together with the legal interest from the date above mentioned.

LAMBERT his X mark RANGER.

In the presence of

JACOB BOAS,

BAZIL MISPLAY.

It appears from the bill and answer, as well as the testimony of witnesses, that in the summer of 1830, Lambert Ranger was indebted to the firm of Desloge & Rozier in the sum of two hundred dollars; that Ranger being confined to his house by illness, from which he never recovered, was called upon by Desloge, the acting partner of the firm, to settle his account, but being unable to do so, executed the above instrument of writing. The answer of Desloge avers that the negro girl was delivered up to him immediately on the execution of the instrument, but that from her tender age he offered to leave her with the complainant, and did so leave her.

The witnesses say nothing of any delivery, but state their impression to have been, that the girl was to remain in possession of Ranger for two years. One witness states that she was present at the sale, and that Desloge said to Ranger, that the girl might stay two years, and if the money was not paid, he would take her away. Ranger died shortly after the sale. Before the expiration of the two years, Desloge called upon the complainant, and stating that he had need of the services of the girl, in consequence of the illness of his own house servants, requested her to be sent to his house, with a promise that he would return her so soon as his servants should recover. The girl was sent, but was never afterwards in possession of the complainant. About the expiration of the two years allowed for redemption, Desloge, at the request of Marie T. Ranger, the widow of Lambert Ranger, consented that she might have six months longer to redeem the negro; but she was still unable to do so; and in the year 1835 the negro was sold by Desloge for eight hundred dollars. There was proof that the two hundred dollars, with interest, had been on one or two occasions tendered to Desloge, but refused. But no proof of any tender until after the expiration of the two years and six months allowed for redemption, by the instrument of writing, and the subsequent parol agreement of Desloge. It was also in proof that two hundred dollars was a fair price for negroes of the description of the one sold, at the time of the transfer to Desloge & Rozier. The court decreed that defendants retain $200.00, their debt, and interest for two years, and pay the complainant the balance, amounting to $576, with interest from 13th December, 1836, the date of the writ.

The only inquiry presented by the record is, whether the contract in this case was a security for the repayment of money, or an actual sale. Courts of equity have never denied to parties the power of making contracts for conditional sales, and if the form of the instrument, together with the extrinsic circumstances attending the contract, are conclusive of the intention of the parties, it is not their province to interfere. When the form of the instrument is not conclusive either way, resort must be had to the circumstances attending the transaction. And if, upon a full view of the whole matter, doubts may be reasonably entertained as to the real intent of the parties, courts of equity have inclined to regard the transaction a mortgage. By this rule of interpetration, no injustice is done to the creditor, as he receives his debt and interest, which it was his purpose to secure.

In this case the instrument contains a clause of redemption, and is so far a mortgage. It does not, however, contain any obligation for the repayment of the money, and in that particular, lacks one of the most...