Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Burnett
Massillon Engine & Thresher Company v. Burnett
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Luke, J.
1. An instrument in the usual form of a security deed under section 3306 of the Civil Code of 1910, but containing a clause providing that should the grantor “faithfully perform and keep all the covenants and agreements herein set out, this conveyance shall cease, determine, and be void,” is a mortgage, and not a deed. Burckhalter v. Planters Loan & Savings Bank, 100 Ga. 428, 432 ( 28 S. E. 236 ); Scott v. Hughes, 124 Ga. 1000 ( 53 S. E. 453 ).
2. Especially is the instrument construed in this case a mortgage and not a deed passing title, because its first words are: “This mortgage, made this the 18th day of September, 1915,” and in several other places therein it is described as “this mortgage;” indicating that it was the intention of the parties that the instrument be construed to be a mortgage.
3. The construction of the contract upon which the claimant based title being the only question presented for determination, and the trial court having correctly construed the instrument to be a mortgage and not a deed, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.
Judgment affirmed.
Wade, G. J., and George, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.