Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Burnett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Burnett

91 S.E. 786, 19 Ga. App. 487, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 183

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1917

Docket7866

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 786 (Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Burnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Burnett, 91 S.E. 786, 19 Ga. App. 487, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 183 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI