BANK OF WESTMINSTER VS. WHYTE. 539

contradict, add too, or vary the terms of a will, deed or other
instrument." Bend vs. The Susquehanna, &c. Co., 6 H. & J.,
128; Watkins vs. Stockett, ib., 435.

In this case, the transfer of the three stalls is absolute and
unconditional, and if there was nothing in the answer of Mr.
Fisher, to whom the transfers were made, and who acted as
the agent of the bank in the negotiation with Suter, from
which it could be fairly inferred that the object was to take se-
curity for money loaned, or to be loaned, it would fall within the
general rule; and the transfer could not be qualified by the in-
troduction of parol evidence, neither fraud nor mistake being
alleged.

But, looking to the pleadings in the cause, and especially to
the answer of Fisher, to the bill filed by Whyte, as the perma-
nent trustee of Suter, to set aside the transfer as fraudulent in
view of the insolvent laws, which answer is invoked in these
causes, and has been read without objection, and there can, I
think, be no doubt that the transfer of the stalls was taken as
security for the repayment of the money due to the bank, and
not absolutely by way of purchase.

The language of the answer is, "that the said sum of three
thousand dollars was not lent specifically upon the security of
the three stalls in different markets in the city of Baltimore,
but on the joint security of said stalls and other property of
said Suter, which, at the time was believed by this respondent,
to be bound by said judgment, the object of the Bank and Su-
ter being, as understood .by the respondent, to secure not only
the money then advanced, but the debt previously due the
bank."

It, therefore, clearly appears, that the transfer of the stalls was
taken as security for a debt, and whether to secure the specific
sum of three thousand dollars loaned Suter at that time, or the
entire debt of nine thousand dollars, for which judgment was
confessed, still the intention of the parties was merely to give
and to take, a security for a debt, and, consequently, the trans-
action must be treated accordingly—that is, the transfer must
be regarded as a mortgage or pledge, to secure the payment of.
a debt, and not as passing the absolute title to the creditor.