Edgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) Camp.

The Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) online

. (page 94 of 143)
Online LibraryEdgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) CampThe Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) → online text (page 94 of 143)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Contra. — In Brown v. Corbin. 121
Ind. 455, 23 N. E. 276. the court says :
"Two objections are made to the
mortgage — one tliat it is not ac-
knowledged by Augustus Palin, but
only acknowledged by his wife; and,
further, that as to the personal prop-
erty it must appear to have been re-


corded within ten days in the county
where the mortgagors reside, and tiiat
it does not appear by the pleadings or
evidence that Palin and Palin resided
in Warren county when the mort-
gage was executed and recorded. As
to the latter objection, it is sufficient
to say that it appears upon the face
of the mortgage that both the mort-
gagor and mortgagees reside in War-
ren county, and the evidence shows
it to have been recorded in the re-
corder's office of said county the
same daj' of its execution. The
mortgage showing upon its face that
the mortgagors resided in Warren
county, the mortgage would be f<rima
facie a valid lien ; and the burden of
proof would rest on the person as-
serting its invalidity to show tliat it
was not recorded in tlie county where
the mortgagors resided."

On the question whether the mort-
gage was recorded in the proper
count}-, the recitals in the mortgage
of the residence of the mortgagor, in
the county of record, are prima facie
evidence of the due recording of the
mortgage, without other proof of tlie
actual status of the mortgaged chat-
tels. Chator v. Brunswick- Balke-
Collender Co., 71 Tex. 588. 10 S. W.

82. Tweto V. Burau. 90 Minn. 451.
97 N. W. 128.

83. Chator v. Brunswick-Balke-
Collender Co., 71 Tex. 588, 10 S.
W. 250.

Such recital has the effect of an
admission, not, however, conclusive,
and he may still show that his resi-
dence is elsewhere. Hewitt :■. Gen-
eral Elec. Co., 61 111. App. 1O8.




at the time of its execution certain written statements made by the
mortgagor have been admitted.**

F. Failure to Record. — Actual Notice. — a. Burden of
Proof. — The party claiming under or through an unrecorded mort-
gage against a subsequent innocent purchaser of the mortgaged
property has the burden of proving actual notice of his mortgage
to the party against whom he claims.*^ The authorities are not
agreed upon this proposition, however, some cases holding that as
the mortgage is valid as between the parties, though not recorded,
the subsequent purchaser has the burden of proving lack of knowl-
edge or notice of the other's rights under his mortgage.**^ In an
action to foreclose a subsequent mortgage the plaintiff has the bur-
den of showing that he took his mortgage without notice of a prior
unrecorded mortgage, as against which the lien of the subsequent
mortgage is alleged to be superior.^'' And the same rule as to burden

84. Recitals in Other Writings.

A contract made between the parties
prior to the execution of the mort-
gage, relating the mortgagor's resi-
dence, may be received in evidence.
Brunnemer v. Cook, 89 App. Div. 406,
85 N. Y. Supp. 954-

The statements of the mortgagor
made to the taxing officers, showing
his residence to be in another place,
may be received. Loeser v. Jorgen-
sen (Mich.), 100 N. W. 450.

The mortgagor's claims, made to
the proper board, for the purpose of
voting, are admissible. Loeser v.
Jorgensen (Mich.), 100 N. W. 450.

85. View That Mortgagee "Under
Unrecorded Mortgage Has Burden To
Prove Notice to Subsequent Pur-
chaser. — Alabama. — Pollak v. Da-
vidson, 87 Ala. 551, 6 So. 312.

Iowa. — Dayton State Bank z'.
Felt, 99 Iowa 532, 68 N. W. 818. 61
Am. St. Rep. 253; Carson & Rand
Lumb. Co. V. Bunker, 83 Iowa 751,
49 N. W. 1003.

Michigan. — Williams v. Bresna-
han, 66 Mich. 634, 33 N. W. 739-

Nebraska. — Rogers v. Pierce. 12
Neb. 48, 10 N. W. 535-

Ohio. — Paine v. Mason, 7 Ohio
St. 198.

South Dakota. — LaCrosse Boot &
Shoe Mfg. Co. V. Mons Anderson
Co., 9 S. D. 560, 70 N. W. 877; La-
crosse Boot & Shoe Mfg. Co. v.
Mons Anderson Co., 14 S. D. 597,
81 N. W. 641.

In an action by the assignee of
the mortgagor for the benefit of
creditors against a mortgagee whose


mortgage was not recorded at the
time the assignment was made, the
mortgagee has the burden of proving
notice to the creditors of the mort-
gagor of the existence of his mort-
gage. Shay V. Security Bank of Du-
luth, 67 Minn. 287, 69 N. W. 920.

86. Ransom z'. Schmela, 13 Neb.
yS, 12 N. W. 926; Bank of Farming-
ton V. Ellis. 30 Minn. 270, 15 N. W.
243; Diemer v. Guernsey, 112 Iowa
393, 83 N. W. 1047.

In the case of McNeil v. Finnegan.
33, Minn. 375, 23 N. W. 540, the Min-
nesota court thus states the rule :
" Action to recover the value of per-
sonal property alleged to have been
converted by the defendant. . . .
The mortgage was effectual as be-
tween the mortgagor, owning the
chattel, and the mortgagee, and if
the defendant would defeat the prima
facie title of the mortgagee upon the
ground that he had become a subse-
quent purchaser in good faith, it was
incumbent upon him to show that
he was such."

In an action by a subsequent mort-
gagee, claiming under a recorded
mortgage, against a prior mortgagee
claiming under an unrecorded mort-
gage, the subsequent mortgagee has
the burden of proving that he took
his mortgage without notice of the
prior mortgage. Wright v. Larson,
51 Minn. 321, 53 N. W. 712; Bank
of Farmington v. Ellis, 30 Minn. 270,
15 N. W. 243.

87. Diemer z\ Guernsey, 112 Iowa
393, 83 N. W. 1047.



of proof applies in an action by the subsequent mortgagee to set
aside an earlier unrecorded mortgage.®*

b. Character of Ei'idoicc. — Actual notice of an unrecorded mort-
gage need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be inferred from
the circumstances.®^

c. Particular Matters Admissible. — Good faith and lack of notice
may be inferred from the fact that the subsequent mortgage was
taken for a valuable consideration and in the usual course of busi-
ness.^ Where actual notice of a prior unrecorded mortgage is not
shown in a controversy with a third party, evidence of the consid-
eration of the prior mortgage is not material."^


1. In General. — A. Presumption of Ownership From Execu-
tion OF Mortgage. — The giving of a chattel mortgage creates a
presumption, as against the mortgagor and persons claiming through
or under him, that the mortgagor was the owner of the mortgaged
property at the time the instrument was executed,'"'- though, as
against persons not parties to the instrument, or their privies, it has
no such presumptive force. '^^

88. Caiilfield ?■. Curry. 63 Mich.
594. 30 N. W. 191.

89. Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst.
563, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9469; McNeil t'.
Finnegan, 33 Minn. 375. 23 N. W. 540.

90. When Lack of Notice Pre-
sumed Bank of Farmington v.

Ellis, 30 Minn. 270. 15 N. W. 243;
Wright z'. Larson, 51 Minn. 321, 53
N. W. 712.

To charge Vendee With Notice.
To charge the owner of real estate
with notice or knowledge of a mort-
gage on tlie crops grown thereon,
executed by his vendor, evidence of
mortgages executed by the vendor
to other parties on such crops, and
the negotiations of the parties to the
conveyance relating to such mort-
gages, is properly received. Luce v.
Moorehead, 77 Iowa 367, 42 N. W.

Mortgagor's Declarations as to In-
cumbrances. —The declarations of
the mortgagor to the subsequent
mortgagee, that the property is un-
incumbered, are admissible in such
mortgagee's behalf on the question
whether he had notice of a prior un-
recorded mortgage on the property.
Sumner v. Dalton, 58 N. H. 295.

91. See Johnson v. Wilson, 137
Ala. 468, 34 So. 392.

92. Mathew v. Mathew, 138 Cal.
334. 71 Pac. 344.

93. Everett v. Brown. 64 Iowa 420.
20 N. W. 743; .A.ndregg v. Brunskill.
87 Iowa 351, 54 N. W. 135. 43 Am.
St. Rep. 388; Union Bank of Trenton
7'. First Nat. Bank, 2 Mo. .A.pp. Rep.
990 ; State Bank v. Felt, 99 Iowa
532, 68 N. W. 818.

As Against Subsequent Mortgagee.
Warner z'. Wilson. 73 Iowa 719, 36
N. W. 719, 5 Am. St. Rep. 710.

The recital in a chattel mortgage
that the property mortgaged is free
from other incumbrances and is in
the mortgagor's possession is not to
be received as substantive proof in
favor of the mortgagee as against
a purchase under an attachment sale
at the instance of the mortgagor's
creditors. Syck v. Bossingham, 120
Iowa 363. 94 N. W. 920.

Where neither the mortgagor nor
the mortgagee is shown ever to have
had possession of the mortgaged
chattels, in an action by the mort-
gagee against a stranger to the mort-
gage for possession of the mortgaged
chattels, the mortgage is only res
inter alios; and proof of its execu-
tion and delivery does not, in such
circumstances, make out a prima facie
case for the plaintiff. Gibbs rv Childs.




B. Burden To Show Notice. — A purchaser of mortgaged prop-
erty at a foreclosure sale of the same has the burden of showing
want of notice of the vendor's right on the part of the mortgagee as
against a party asserting a conditional sale of the property to the
mortgagor and a breach of the condition.^*

2. Actions Between Parties to the Instrument. — A. Burden of
Proof in Generae. — In an action by the mortgagor against the
mortgagee to recover possession of the mortgaged chattels,''^ or for
their value,®*^ the mortgagee, justifying under his mortgage, has the
burden of showing facts authorizing his acts. A mortgagee suing
the mortgagor for breach of the warranty of title to the mortgaged

143 jNTass. 103. 9 N. E. 3. In this
case the court said : " There was no
evidence that the plaintiffs ever had
possession of the boat, or any title to
it except as mortgagees under a
mortgage given b)' William H. Chad-
wick on January 8, 1885. and there
was no evidence that William H.
Chadwick ever had possession of the
boat, or any right or title to it. The
plaintiffs can only recover upon their
own title or right of possession. The
execution and delivery of a mortgage
of personal property are not evidence
of title to the property included in
the mortgage, as against a stranger.
Such acts are not necessarily acts of
dominion over the property itself. If
there was no possession of the prop-
erty by either the mortgagor or mort-
gagees, the mortgage was, with re-
spect to the defendant, res inter alios.
The mortgage in this case is not an
ancient document. If the execution,
delivery and recording of a mort-
gage were held to create a prima
facie title to personal property against
a person in possession, then a prima
facie right to the property of another
could be created by any one at will."

Contra. — -Where the mortgagor is
in possession of the mortgaged prop-
erty at the time he made a mortgage,
the making of the mortgage is an act
of dominion over the property, and
some evidence of title in the mort-
gagor. Eames v. Snell, 143 Mass.
165, 9 N. E. 522.

94, In an action by a vendor un-
der an unrecorded conditional bill of
sale, required by the statute to be
recorded, against a party claiming
by purchase at a mortgage foreclos-


ure sale under a mortgage from the
vendee, the defendant has the bur-
den of showing that the mortgagee,
through whom he claims, accepted
the mortgage without notice of the
vendor's rights. Berner 7'. Kaye, 14
Misc. I, 35 N. Y. Supp. 181.

95. Replevin by Mortgagor In

an action of replevin by a mortgagor
against a mortgagee, wherein the de-
fendant answers the giving of the
mortgage with a stipulation that upon
a sale or attempt to sell by the
mortgagor the mortgagee shall have
the right to take the property, and
the plaintiff merely replies the gen-
eral denial, the defendant has the
burden under the issue thus joined
of showing a sale or an attempt to
sell without his consent. Matthews
V. Granger, 196 111. 164, 63 N. E. 658.

In Trespass. — In an action of
trespass by the mortgagor against
the mortgagee for a wrongful sale of
the mortgaged chattels the defend-
ant has the burden of showing such a
breach of the conditions of the mort-
gage as authorized the sale. Davis
V. Bowers Granite Co., 75 Vt. 286, 54
Atl. 1084.

96. Action by Mortgagor for Con-
version Under a chattel mortgage

giving the mortgagor the possession
of the mortgaged chattels until a
certain contingency should arise, in
an action by the mortgagor against
the mortgagee for the conversion of
the mortgaged property the mort-
gagee has the burden of showing by
a preponderance of the evidence the
fulfillment of the conditions entitling
him to possession under the mort-



property has the hurdcn of showinnr the amount of damage

B. Insecurity as Gkouxd of Kori-i;itukk. — a. Burden of Proof.
It is a common clause in chattel mortgages that the mortgagee shall
have the right to take possession of the mortgaged projx'rty when-
ever he shall deem himself insecure. The prevailing rule is that in
justifying his possession under such a clause the mortgagee must
show that he has reasonable grounds for his belief of insecurity.""

b. Admissibility of Bi'idcnce. — The mortgagor's property in gen-
eral and the condition of his family are circumstances improper for

jj;age. Rector-Wilhclmy Co. 7'. Nis-
scii, 35 Neb. 716. 33 .\. W. 670.

97. Breach of Warranty of Title.
To warrant a recovery for breach of
a warranty of title in the mortgagor,
proof of the mortgagee's damage
must be made, and merelj' that some
of the mortgaged chattels were taken
from the mortgagee under a prior
chattel mortgage, the existence of
which is not shown, is insufficient.
Hanson v. Kassmayer. 91 N. Y.
Supp. 755-

98. Deal v. Osborne, 42 Minn.
102, 43 N. W. 835; Bailey t'. Godfrey,
54 111. 507. 5 Am. Rep. 157; Bank of
Carroll v. Tavlor, 67 Iowa 572, 25
N. W. 810; Si'lls V. Hawes, 14 Colo.
App. 157, 59 Pac. 422; Hogan v.
Akin, 181 111. 448. 55 N. E. r37, re-
versing 81 111. App. 62; Slingo V.
Steele-Wedles Co., 82 111. App. 139;
Ley V. Rcitz, 25 111. App. 615 ; Woods
7'. Gaar, 93 Mich. 143, 53 N. W. 14;
Brown v. Hogan, 49 Neb. 746, 69 N.
\V. 100 ; Hyer 7'. Sutton, 59 Hun 40,
12 N. Y. Supp. 378; Brook v. Bayless.
6 Okla. 56S, 52 Pac. 738; First Nat.
J.ank V. Teat, 40 Okla. 454, 46 Pac.
474; Humpfner 7-. Osborne, 2 S. D.
310, 50 N. W. 88.

Under a provision that the mort-
gagee ma}' take possession of the
mortgaged property whenever he
shall " feel himself unsafe or inse-
cure," there must be reasonable
ground or probable cause for such
action. Roy v. Goings, 96 111. 361,
36 Am. Rep. 151 ; Furlong v. Cox,
77 III- 293.

In a controversy between the par-
ties over the mortgaged property the
mortgagee, relying on this clause of
his mortgage, need not produce the
secured note in evidence where it is
shown that prior to the time the

mortgagee took the property the
mortgagor had sold part of it and
had indicated his intention to sell
more of it. Hill v. Merriman, '2
Wis. 483, 40 N. W. 399.

Where the mortgage provides that
the mortgagee may take possession
of the mortgaged premises whenever
he " shall at any time deem himself
unsafe," the mortgagee must prove
some ground for claiming that he
deems himself insecure. Hawver v.
Bell. 141 N. Y. 140. 36 N. E. 6. Sec
also Newlean v. Olson, 22 Neb. 717,
36 N. W. 155-

The question whether there were
reasonable grounds for a belief of in-
security to warrant a forfeiture un-
der the mortgage is one of fact for
the jurv. Nash v. Larson, 80 Minn.
458. S3 N. W. 451. 81 Am. St. Rep. 272.

There are authorities however, to
the effect that such a clause gives ab-
solute power to be exerci.sed accord-
ing to his own judgment. Clinc v.
Libby, 46 Wis. 123, 49 N. W. 832, 32
Am. Rep. 700; Gage 7'. Wavland, 67
Wis. 566. 31 N. W. 108; Werner 7'.
Bergman. 28 Kan. 60, 42 Am. Rep.
152; Huebner v. Koebke, 42 Wis.
319; Evans 7'. Graham. 50 Wis. 450,
7 N. W. 380; Allen 7'. Vose. 34 • bni
(N. Y.) 57.

Mortgagee Must Act in Good
Faith. — Barret 7'. Hart. 42 Ohio St.
41, 51 Am. Rep. 801; Hill 7'. Merri-
man, ~2 W^is. 483, 40 N. W. 399.

Where the mortgagee is authorized
to take possession when he deems
himself unsafe he need not prove
that he is unsafe or insecure, but
it will be presumed when he takes
possession that he considers himself
insecure. Smith 7'. Post, i Hun (N.
Y.) 516.




consideration."" Evidence of the mortgagor s conduct toward the
mortgaged property is competent, and the mortgagee's own testi-
mony, it is held, is competent on the question whether he deemed
himself insecure.^

C. Defenses. — a. To the Mortgagor's Action. — A mortgagee
may show subsequent liens on the property, in an action brought
against him for conversion.^ The mortgagee establishes against the
mortgagor a prima facie defense to his action for the possession of
the goods by producing the mortgage and the obligation it secures.^

b. To the Mortgagee's Action. — The right of possession in an-
other, when asserted as a defense, must be an absolute and not a
conditional right.* The mortgagor in such an action has the burden
of proving his defense to the note secured.^

99. Grady v. Smith, 14 111. App.


But Mere Rumors Are Incompe-
tent Rector-Wilhelmy Co. v. Nis-

sen. 35 Neb. 716, 53 N. W. 670.

1. Huggans v. Frver, i Lans. (N.
Y.) 276.

Under a clause that the mortgagee
may take possession when he " deems
himself in danger," the mortgagee
must act in good faith. Not the fact
of danger, but the belief of danger,
is material. " The true standard
must be, whether or not the mort-
gagee, acting in good faith, at the
time deems himself in danger. And
the mortgagee, if a competent witness
in the case, may testify as to whether
or not he then deemed himself in
such danger. Then the grounds of
such thought may be tested to ascer-
tain whether or not he did deem him-
self in such danger." Barret v. Hart,
42 Ohio St. 41, 51 Am. Rep. 801.

2. Subsequent Mortgages. — Mit-
igation of Damages Kohn v. Da-
vis. 94 Fed. 2S8. 36 C. C. A. 253.

But in an action by the mortgagor to
replevin a mortgaged chattel, alleged
to have been taken by the mortgagee
in violation of the agreement between
the parties, evidence of any other in-
debtedness of the mortgagor to the
mortgagee is not admissible in mitiga-
tion of the plaintiff's damages. Finley
V. Cudd. 42 S. C. 121, 26 S. E. 32.

3. Fikes v. Manchester, 43 111. 379-

4. Action by Second Mortgagee
Against Mortgagor. — Prior Mort-
gagee's Right to Possession James


V. Wilson, 8 N. D. 186, 77 N. W.
603 ; Adams z'. Wildes, 107 Mass. 123.
In Gardner v. Morrison, 12 Ala. 547,
the court says: "It is no objection
to this conclusion that plaintiff's title
is subordinate to that of the first
mortgagee, and that the property may
be recovered of him by the latter.
This is a matter with which the de-
fendant has no concern. The plain-
tiff may relieve himself from the lien
of the first mortgage by purchasing
it, or paying the debt for which it
provides, or he may go into equity
and foreclose, giving the first mort-
gagee the preference in the payment
of his demand. Whatever be the
rights and remedies between prior
and subsequent mortgagees it is un-
important to the defense set up."

The Kansas court, in Rankine z'.
Greer, 38 Kan. 343, 16 Pac. 680, thus
says : " But this right of possession
must be an absolute right; one not
contingent nor dependent upon cir-
cumstances or conditions. . . .
This right of possession under a
mortgage is a right to be claimed by
the mortgagee. He might never
claim the property ; it might not be
necessary for him to do so; the debt
might be paid, or he might have other
security or other property included
in his mortgage sufficient to satisfy
his claim independent of this prop-

5. Burden as to Failure of Con-
sideration. _ Fikes r. Manchester,
43 111- 379-



D. Admissibility. — In the note will be found several instances
of the rule that the evidence must follow the pleadin.c^s.'''

a. Varying by Parol. — A parol agreement, made contemporane-
ously with the written mortgage, is not admissible to aflfect the
mortgagee's right to possession as secured by the mortgage.''

b. Proof of Circumstances in General. — Where the ownership or
the right to the possession of the mortgaged goods is in controversy,
the circumstances leading up to the transactions between the parties
and their dealings imder the contractual relation may be proved.®

c. The Mortgage as Proof of the Mortgagee's Right. — Where the
mortgage is relied on by the mortgagee it is competent proof of his
rights without the introduction of the obligation it secures."

3. Actions Between Mortgagor and Third Parties. — Parol evi-
dence to show license to sell may be given. ^°

4. Actions Between Mortgagee and Third Parties. — A. Burden
OF Proof. — a. On the Mortgagee. — Where the mortgagee is at-
tempting to assert a right in or to the mortgaged property superior
to the right of a creditor of the mortgagor or a purchaser of the

6. Allegation of Bill of Sale.

Proof of Mortg-age Powers v.

Benson. 120 Iowa 428. 94 N. W. 929.

Substitution of Relation of
Pledgor and Pledgee. — Marsh v.
Wade, I Wash. 538, 20 Pac. 578.

Plea of Failure of Consideration.
Evidence of Fraud Inadmissible.
Bufford V. Rancy, 122 Ala. 565, 26
So. 120.

Under General Denial. — Right of

Possession in Third Party James

V. Wilson, 8 N. D. 186. 77 N. W^
603. See article " Replevin."

7. In Robieson v. Rojce, 63 Kan.
886, 66 Pac. 646, the court held inad-
missible evidence offered by the
mortgagor that at the time the mort-
gage was executed it was agreed be-
tween the parties that the mortgagee
would not enforce the mortgage or
disturb the mortgaged property until
a given time, saying : " This testi-
mony was inadmissible. It was an
attempt to incorporate in the written
instrument verbal agreements made
contemporaneously with its execu-

8. In an action for conversion
against the mortgagee brought by the
mortgagor, the giving of the mort-
gage and the amount of debt which
it secured, and other matters leading
up to the controversy out of which
the mortgagor's claim arose, are all

competent matters. Cadwell v.
Pray, 86 Mich. 266, 49 N. W. 150.

In an action against the mortgagee
for conversion of the mortgaged
property the mortgagor may intro-
duce in evidence the original mort-
gage upon the property, and the re-
newals thereof, to bring before the
court the entire transaction had be-
tween the parties. Casey v. Ballou
Bkg. Co., 98 Iowa 107. 67 N. W. 98-

9. Where the mortgagee in an ac-
tion for conversion relies upon the
provision of the mortgage authoriz-
ing him to take possession of the
mortgaged property when he shall
deem himself insecure, he may intro-
duce the mortgage in evidence with-
out producing the note which the
mortgage was given to .secure. Hill
?■. Merriman, 72 Wis. 483, 40 N. W.


The mortgage may be received in
evidence to establish the special own-
ership of the mortgagee in the prop-
erty, though the date of the note
therein mentioned is different from
the actual date, where the evidence
.shows their contemporaneous execu-
tion. Scrafford v. Gibbons, 44 Kan.
533, 24 Pac. 968.

10. In an action by a mortgagor
against the purchaser of the mort-
gaged property from the mortgagee,
the defendant may justify under a

Vol. vin



property, he has in general the burden of proving every fact upon
which the vaHdity of his claim depends."

parol license to sell, given to the
mortgagee, notwithstanding the mort-
gage is under seal. Hunt v. Allen,
73 Vt. 322. so Atl. 1 103.

11. Chenyworth r. Daily, 7 Ind.
284; Matlock V. Straughn, 21 Ind.
128: State V. O'Neill. i=;i Mo. 67. 52
S. W. 240.

Prima Facie Case as to Good Faith.
In an action by a mortgagee of a
chattel under an unrecorded mcirtgage
against a subsequent purchaser from
the mortgagor for conversion, the
plaintiff makes a prima facie case by
proof of the mortgage ; the non-pay-
ment of the mortgage debt; demand,
after maturity, for the delivery of
the property, and the refusal to de-
liver the same. The defendant there-
upon must show that he is a subse-
quent purchaser in good faith. Mc-
Neil V. Finnegan, 2>3 Minn. 375, 23 N.
W. 540.

The mortgagee makes out a prima
facie case of good faith in the taking
of his mortgage by proof that the
mortgage was given to secure an

Online LibraryEdgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) CampThe Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) → online text (page 94 of 143)