HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE. 225

Grant, Clarice, and Bryden, as the persons who held the entire
estate, legal and equitable; and as the grantors in fee simple to
the late Samuel Chase, for the consideration of $17,500. It is
clear from the indenture of the 4th of February, 1806, that the
late Samuel Chase obtained the whole and entire interest of all
those persons, as well at law as in equity; and became thereby
vested with an absolute estate in fee simple. Because, it appears
by the recitals of that deed, that he had paid Gough and Clarke
for the legal interest they held; and that he had also paid for the
equitable interest of Grant and Bryden. From this deed alone,
therefore, there can be no doubt, that the late Samuel Chase held
an estate in fee simple, of which this plaintiff is dowable.

But the bond of the 26th of February, 1806, it is said, shows
that the previous contract, of the 4th of the same month, according
to the true intention of the parties, is only to be regarded as a
mortgage; that it is not, as it purports to be upon its face, an
absolute sale; but a mere security for the loan of money from
the late Samuel Chase to James Bryden. It is true, the court
should, in cases of this nature, look into the various contempora-
neous agreements and dealings between the parties to ascertain
what was their design, and the real nature of their contract, (m)

This case is, however, susceptible of being still further simplified
and reduced. Let it be supposed, that Bryden had obtained the
entire estate in fee simple from Gough, Grant, and Clarke; and,
being so seized, that he alone was the grantor by the deed of the
4th of February. Then, let this bond, of the 26th of February, be
considered together with or even as a part of that deed. The whole
will read as an absolute sale, with nothing more than a condition
for a re-purchase.

That this whole transaction, from whatever point of view it may
be contemplated, can only be considered as an absolute sale, with
a condition or covenant for a re-purchase, is manifest; because, it
wants all the usual badges and characteristics of a mortgage. The
money paid was, so far as appears, a fair price for the absolute
purchase of such property; liable to much injury, requiring frequent
repairs, and of fluctuating fashion and profits. Although Chase
was not put into actual possession, yet Bryden leased from Mm,
and held as his tenant. Chase received the rents and profits for
his own use and benefit, and gave no account of them whatever.

(m) Sevier v. Greenway, 19 Ves. 412.
29