Prince v. Bearden
| Decision Date | 09 April 1818 |
| Parties | John Prince v. John Bearden. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
ON A WRIT OF ERROR TO REVERSE A DECISION OF THE CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.
Bibb for appellant.
B Hardin for appellee.
On the 25th of March, 1812, Bearden, in consideration of $300 executed his bill of sale to Prince for a negro woman, upon condition that if Bearden repaid that sum on or before the 1st of September then ensuing, the sale should be void; it being therein declared as the intention and understanding of the parties to be a conditional sale, and not a mortgage.
The money was not repaid within the time stipulated, nor an offer to pay the same for upwards of two years thereafter. In the mean time the negro woman had two children. And in the summer 1815, Bearden filed his bill, alleging that the money had been obtained as a loan, and the negro placed as a pledge only, for its repayment.
He alleges also, that some time before the expiration of the time stipulated for the repayment of the money, he informed Prince that he should be unable to pay it by that time without again borrowing the money and mortgaging the negro and that thereupon Prince assured him that no advantage on that account should be taken.
Prince, in his answer, contends, that he purchased, and did not take the negro in pledge; and admits that he informed Bearden, that he might have six or seven months longer than the time specified in the writing to repay the money, upon the request of Bearden, and his representation that he intended to go to South Carolina, where he expected to get the money.
And he charges most positively, that the nature of the agreement was fully explained at the time of entering into it; and that he refused to enter into any arrangement, which, if not complied with, might involve him in a suit on a mortgage to procure either the money or the property.
The distinction between mortgages and conditional sales is clearly recognized by law. Each case must, in some measure, depend on its own circumstances, and rest upon the legal discretion of the court to distinguish between cases coming within one and those falling within the other class.
A clear distinction is recognized in the law between a mortgage and a conditional sale; but it must be left to the circumstances of each case and the sound discretion of the court, to decide to which class a case may belong.
If this be not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial