Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: E. G. Baxter and S. L. Scruggs, both of Gainesville, for Appellant;
W. S. Broome, of Gainesville, for Appellee.
Filed: Oct. 26, 1928
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The only question to be determined herein is whether, on the pleadings and evidence in the suit, the chancellor below erred in decreeing that the conveyance of certain lands by the appellee to the appellant, by warranty deed absolute on its face, was in fact and in law merely a mortgage to secure the payment of money. This Court has repeatedly held, under the governing statute, which provides that "all deeds of conveyance, obligations conditioned or defeasible, bills of sale or other instruments
Summary: The only question to be determined herein is whether, on the pleadings and evidence in the suit, the chancellor below erred in decreeing that the conveyance of certain lands by the appellee to the appellant, by warranty deed absolute on its face, was in fact and in law merely a mortgage to secure the payment of money. This Court has repeatedly held, under the governing statute, which provides that "all deeds of conveyance, obligations conditioned or defeasible, bills of sale or other instruments ..
More
The record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chap. 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the decree of the court below should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
ELLIS, C. J., AND WHITFIELD, TERRELL, STRUM, BROWN AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.
