Wilson et al. v. Shoenberger's Executors

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 31 Pa. 295
• Parties: Wilson et al. versus Shoenberger's Executors.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 295

31 Pa. 295

Wilson et al. versus Shoenberger's Executors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Champneys, Smith, and Petriken, for the plaintiffs in error, cited Snyder v. Leibengood, 4 Barr 308; Pugh v. Good, 3 W. & S. 63; Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Moore, 2 Wh. 491; Adam's Equity 258; Strong v. Stewart, 4 Johns. Ch. 167; 1 Powell on Mortgages 104; Walker v. Walker, 2 Atk. 99; Dixon v. Parker, 2 Ves. 225; Coote on Mort. 26, 332; 3 T. R. 771; 3 Ves. Jr. 25; Maxwell v. Montacute, Prec. Ch. 526; Franklyn v. Ferne, Barnard. 30; Cover v. Black, 1 Barr 494; Rodgers v. Gibson, 4 Yeates 112; Lightner v. Mooney, 10 Watts 412; Ebner v. Goundie, 5 W. & S. 51; 4 Inst. 272; 3 Inst. 306-352 n.; Patterson v. Lytle, 1 Jones 56; Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts 238; Kunkle v. Wolfersberger, 6 Id. 126; Robertson v. Campbell, 2 Call 421; King v. Newman, 2 Munf. 40; Thompson v. Davenport, 1 Wash. 125; Green v. Drinker, 7 W. & S. 440; Kramer v. Arthurs, 7 Barr 165; Sergeant v. Ingersoll, Id. 345; Russell's Appeal, 3 Harris 319; Auwerter v. Mathiot, 9 S. & R. 397; Catlin v. Robinson, 2 Watts 378; McMullen v. Wenner, 16 S. & R. 20; Purviance v. Lemmon, Id. 294; Randall v. Silverthorn, 4 Barr 177; Woods v. Farmere, 7 Watts 382; Jeremy's Equity 283; 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 170-1; 1 Story's Eq. 75; Adams Eq. 151-3; Cox v. Cox, 2 Casey 382; Myers v. Myers, 1 Id. 101; Stoever v. Stoever, 9 S. & R. 446-7; Robinson v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. Ch. 138; Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch 218-41; Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 533-4; Alderson v. White, 4 Jurist (N. S.) 164.

Miles and Dorris, for the defendants in error.—Corning's Executors v. Alexander, 7 Cranch 218; Stoever v. Stoever, 9 S. & R. 447; Colwell v. Woods, 3 Watts 196; Kerr v. Gilmore, 6 Id. 408; Blakey's Appeal, 7 Barr 450; Jaques v. Weeks, 7 Watts 261; Friedley v. Hamilton, 17 S. & R. 70; Bank v. Bank, 7 W. & S. 336; Hiester v. Maderia, 3 Id. 388; Johnston v. Gray, 16 S. & R. 366; Adam's Eq. 258, 259; Lodge v. Simonton, 2 Penn. R. 439; Pierce v. McKeehan, 3 Barr 140; Northampton Bank v. Balliet, 8 W. & S. 316; 1 Dall. 28; 4 S. & R. 186-7; Frantz v. Brown, 1 Penn. R. 261; Uhler v. Hutchinson, 11 Harris 110; Hulings v. Guthrie, 4 Barr 125; Semple v. Burd, 7 S. & R. 290; Wharf v. Howell, 5 Binn. 499.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

That Edwin F. Shoeneberger was the owner of Juniata Forge and its adjacent lands on the 14th May 1849, is a conceded point.

The ruling question in the cause is — indeed it is the only question that merits any consideration — did he on that day sell and convey his title absolutely or conditionally to Gen. Wilson for a valuable consideration, or must the deed he made, when taken in connection with the accompanying papers, be treated as a mortgage?

This question the court below met fairly, and ruled it distinctly. They held the conveyance, the bonds, and the contract to amount to nothing more than a device or expedient to pledge the property as a security for money. The authorities cited in the argument, and which it would be a waste of time for us to review in detail, fully sustain the opinion of the court on every point, not excepting the withdrawal of the case from the jury and pronouncing on the legal effect of the papers as a conclusion of law.

In the case of Reitenbaugh v. Ludwick (ante 131), the last of this class of cases that has passed in this court, the question whether a conveyance absolute on its face was intended as a deed of sale, or as a security for money, was submitted to the jury as a question of fact; but this, because the defeasance was not executed at the same time with the deed, but a few weeks thereafter. It was expressly said in that case, that if the two instruments had been contemporaneous in fact as they were in date, the law would have adjudged them a mortgage.

The late case of Alderson v. White before the Lord Chancellor of England, reported in the Jurist, New Series, vol. 4, No. 164, was cited against the ruling in Reitenbaugh v. Ludwick, as it is against the ruling of the learned judge below in the present case; but granting that it is not distinguishable, which is more than ought to be granted, it does not meet nor attempt to answer the reasoning on which our adjudications for fifty years have proceeded.

It is the settled law of the Pennsylvania mortgage, that though in form a conveyance of title, it is in reality, both at law and equity, only a security for the payment of money, or performance of other collateral contract. And none the less so, because the defeasance, instead of appearing in the original deed, is contained in an accompanying or subsequently executed instrument. Before our numerous, coherent, and well-reasoned decisions on this point can be set aside, something more must be shown than an isolated English case, which...