Noah Haynes Swayne

Name: Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Noah Haynes Swayne

Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

Summary

“Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Noah Haynes Swayne. It explores elements such as the Oil Company, mortgage and the Guaranty Company.

Quotes from Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company… (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ In both these latter case the ultimate result with respect to the security would be just the same as if the mortgage were given for a pre-existing debt in literal compliance with the statute. No one could be wronged or injured, while the corporation, whom it was the purpose of the law to aid, might be materially benefited. Is not such a departure within the meaning, if not the letter, of the statute? There would be no more danger of the abuse of the power conferred than if it were exercised in the manner insisted upon. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ Our view is not without support from the language of the statute, that 'every mortgage so made shall be as valid to all intents and purposes as if executed by an individual owning such real estate.' If this mortgage had been given by individuals, the question we are examining doubtless would not have been brought before us for consideration. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ The learned counsel for the appellant insisted that a mortgage could be competently given by the Oil Company only to secure a debt incurred in its business and already subsisting. This, we think, is too narrow a construction of the language of the law. A thing may be within a statute but not within its letter, or within the letter and yet not within the statute. The intent of the law-maker is the law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ It is common learning in the law that parol evidence is admissible to show that a deed absolute on its face is a mortgage, to establish a resulting trust, to show that a written contract was without consideration, that it was void for fraud, illegality, or the disability of a party, that it was modified as to the time, place, or manner of performance or otherwise, or that it was mutually agreed to be abandoned ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ If a note secured by a mortgage be renewed or otherwise changed, the lien of the mortgage continues until the debt is paid. Changes in the form of the instrument are immaterial. Equity regards only the substance of things, and deals with human affairs upon that principle. The same state of things in effect occurred with respect to each of the other sums advanced by the Guaranty Company. The note and warehouse receipt given for them were the note and receipt of the Oil Company, and it was responsible accordingly. Its needs were the motive, and were at the foundation of every loan that was made ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ The object of the loan, the application of the money, and the restraints imposed by the charter in those particulars, would be the same, whether the transaction took one form or the other. According to our construction the company could give no mortgage but one growing out of their business, and intended to aid them in carrying it on. In legal effect the difference between the two constructions is one merely of mode and manner, and not of substance.
Such securities are not contrary to the law or public policy of the State. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ The grounds upon which they proceed are, that a thing is to be regarded as certain which can be made certain; that evidence can be adduced to apply the contract to its subject; that where there is enough to put those concerned upon inquiry, the means of knowledge and knowledge itself are, in legal effect, the same thing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company…

“ After remarking that such an instrument was liable to suspicion, he proceeds:--
'But if, on investigation, the real transaction shall appear to be fair, though somewhat variant from that which is described, it would seem to be unjust and unprecedented to deprive the person claiming under the deed of his real equitable rights, unless it be in favor of a person who has been in fact injured by the misrepresentation. ”

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from Jones v. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Company… (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature