Butts v. Robson

Citations

• 5 Wash. 268
• 31 P. 760
• 1892 Wash. LEXIS 49

Syllabus

<p>CONVEYANCE — WHETHER DEED SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS MORTGAGE — EVIDENCE — CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT — FORFEITURE.</p> <p>In an action to set aside a deed on the ground that it was merely a mortgage, one of the plaintiffs testified that it had been given as part security for a loan at the same time that a mortgage was executed on 209 acres to secure a loan of $800, while the defendant testified that the four acres were deeded to him as a bonus for the loan on the other 209 acres. The evidence showed that the 209 acres were but scant security for the loan; that the four acres were of but little value; that the note and mortgage were made payable in one year, while according to the plaintiff’s testimony the defendant had agreed to erect a cannery upon the four acres within three years, in which the family of plaintiffs could find employment. Held, That the deed was intended by all parties as a conveyance and not a mortgage.</p> <p>The failure of a grantee to perform certain conditions subsequent, which were part of the consideration for a conveyance, will not work a forfeiture where the failure is due to the acts of his grantors or their successors in interest.</p>