§
Fisher v. Comm'r

3 Cited authorities

  1. Houghton v. Burden

    228 U.S. 161 (1913)   Cited 49 times
    In Houghton v. Burden, 228 U.S. 161, 169, 33 S.Ct. 491, 493, 57 L.Ed. 780, the Supreme Court, citing Scott v. Lloyd, 9 Pet. 418, 9 L.Ed. 178, said: "* * * All of this evidence was excepted to as contradicting the written agreement and was admitted over objection.

  2. Guilford-Chester Water Co. v. Guilford

    107 Conn. 519 (Conn. 1928)   Cited 27 times

    In determining whether a transaction is a conditional sale or a mortgage, the controlling question is the intention of the parties as to the purpose to be effectuated. If the transfer is intended merely to secure an existing indebtedness, it is a mortgage; but if the debt is extinguished or if the money is not advanced by way of a loan, and the grantor merely has the privilege of refunding if he pleases, thereby entitling himself to a reconveyance, the transaction is a conditional sale. The mere

  3. Wallace v. Johnstone

    129 U.S. 58 (1889)   Cited 15 times

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. No. 94. Argued November 23, 1888. Decided January 14, 1889. A deed of lands, absolute in form, with general warranty of title, and an agreement by the vendee to reconvey the property to the vendor, or to a third person, upon his payment of a fixed sum within a specified time, do not of themselves constitute a mortgage; nor will they be held to operate as a mortgage unless it is clearly shown, either by parol evidence