LAW states registration not required

[shikamaru]

If anyone finds a "Gold Clause Resolution of 1933", let me know !!!

It turns out I WAS WRONG!

There is a Gold Clause Resolution of 1933!!

Resolutions are generally, not law unless passed by a president after both houses of congress agree on it. It has a temporary affect on matters. [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., pg. 1310]

I didn't do my research thoroughly enough.

For this, I apologize to the board and to motla68 most of all .

That's why I love you guys. I learn so much. Learn so much more in error.

Good stuff . Keep it coming and most of all, keep me on my toes.

[shikamaru]

Alright, let me see if I can shorten this for myself.

The USE is vested in the Trustee.
The Trustee is also the Grantee.

Is the USE vested by legal title? If this is the case, the Trustee possesses the legal title.

The USE is a special class of conveyance (grant), therefore the conveyance is of special focus?

Write me a treatise, MJ!!
I'll settle for a pamphlet though.

[Michael Joseph]

The answer to the question in the 1ST SCENARIO, "Where is the Heir?" is much more elusive. I would like to know the answer, because the UNDERTAKING business has never really worked out well for me.

Who can explain where the Heir is in the 1ST SCENARIO?

Look in the mirror maybe you will then comprehend.

Of course the answers are so obvious as to not need answering. I do not concern myself with the 2nd Scenario. Knowing those things are a waste of my time. I am interested in what I can control. I lack the time or the interest to learn the bylaws and take an oath.

The Trust already exists. Why would I undertake to become trustee? I highly recommend watching the movie CLEOPATRA version 1963, the entire movie, but see the following starting at minute mark 4:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSH0xy6F3dk&feature=related

The Queen adequately states "I know who you are, WHAT ARE YOU, at the moment?"

A supplicant is of course one who requests. Therefore a supplicant begs a benefit from a Grantor.

[Treefarmer]

Thank you Michael Joseph, this explanation greatly aided my comprehension.

The answer to the question in the 2ND SCENARIO, "Why would the Heir UNDERTAKE by USING said Certificate of Beneficial Interest as an ID to obtain Driver's License, SSN, etc?" is easy: because the Heir was told to do so by parents, family members, teachers, elders, etc. The Heir was made to understand that bucking up against this system is equal to being a rebel, a villain, and an outlaw.

The answer to the question in the 1ST SCENARIO, "Where is the Heir?" is much more elusive. I would like to know the answer, because the UNDERTAKING business has never really worked out well for me.

Who can explain where the Heir is in the 1ST SCENARIO?

[Michael Joseph]

Which is the former and which is the latter scenario in your post?
Would you point them out or highlight them please?
Thank you!

1ST SCENARIO:

Consider a possibility of Two Trust formations within the NAME of INHERITANCE = Surname. Does not the Male Son in inherit in his Father's Name? Specifically, the wife does not keep her Father's Name but assumes her Husband's name. Therefore the inheritance is in the Father's Name. It is the Father who Granted the Certificate of Live Birth. It was the Father, overshadowing the Son who ALLOWED the Son's fingerprints/footprints and perhaps blood sample, to be placed upon said Certificate.

To whom was said Certificate made the LIVERY upon? Was it not an OFFICE OF STATE? Is the office of Doctor Alien to the State? What then of the Heir? Where is the Heir? The Estate has been transferred into Trust for the benefit of the Heir! So again, where is the Heir? The State has EVERY right to hear any matter concerning the NAME of INHERITANCE as the State has the Legal Title. But the Heir has the Equitable Title! So again, for the third time, where is the Heir? Is the Heir DEAD? Is this not a valid presumption? Else, where is the Heir?

Now a Certificate of Beneficial Interest issues from the Trustee back upon the Grantor [Birth Certificate].

2ND SCENARIO:

Why would the Heir UNDERTAKE by USING said Certificate of Beneficial Interest as an ID to obtain Driver's License, SSN, etc? See now a man Undertaking for the Grantor [State]? Tell me again, gainsayers: Who issues the Driver's License? Is it not the State, as Grantor? Then, who then is the Trustee?

In the former scenario, the State as Trustee, with the Legal Title and the man, as Administrator/Beneficiary with the Equitable Title.

In the latter scenario, the man as Trustee with the Legal Title [SUBJECT to EVERY statute made within the Trust Bylaws] and the Administration/Beneficiary in the State.

Maybe now you better comprehend why the Attorneys speak of TAXPAYER ENTITLEMENTS.


-------------------------------

Treefarmer: If you comprehend in Scenario 1 who is the Grantor? In Scenario 2: Who is the Grantor? Rhetorical Questions of course, but nevertheless in former (1st Scenario) : Man. In latter (2nd Scenario) :State.

[Treefarmer]

Consider a possibility of Two Trust formations within the NAME of INHERITANCE = Surname. Does not the Male Son in inherit in his Father's Name? Specifically, the wife does not keep her Father's Name but assumes her Husband's name. Therefore the inheritance is in the Father's Name. It is the Father who Granted the Certificate of Live Birth. It was the Father, overshadowing the Son who ALLOWED the Son's fingerprints/footprints and perhaps blood sample, to be placed upon said Certificate.

To whom was said Certificate made the LIVERY upon? Was it not an OFFICE OF STATE? Is the office of Doctor Alien to the State? What then of the Heir? Where is the Heir? The Estate has been transferred into Trust for the benefit of the Heir! So again, where is the Heir? The State has EVERY right to hear any matter concerning the NAME of INHERITANCE as the State has the Legal Title. But the Heir has the Equitable Title! So again, for the third time, where is the Heir? Is the Heir DEAD? Is this not a valid presumption? Else, where is the Heir?

Now a Certificate of Beneficial Interest issues from the Trustee back upon the Grantor [Birth Certificate].

Why would the Heir UNDERTAKE by USING said Certificate of Beneficial Interest as an ID to obtain Driver's License, SSN, etc? See now a man Undertaking for the Grantor [State]? Tell me again, gainsayers: Who issues the Driver's License? Is it not the State, as Grantor? Then, who then is the Trustee?

In the former scenario, the State as Trustee, with the Legal Title and the man, as Administrator/Beneficiary with the Equitable Title.

In the latter scenario, the man as Trustee with the Legal Title [SUBJECT to EVERY statute made within the Trust Bylaws] and the Administration/Beneficiary in the State.

Maybe now you better comprehend why the Attorneys speak of TAXPAYER ENTITLEMENTS.


-------------------------------

This is the Technology of Balaam - Numbers 24-26. Israel must VOLUNTARILY bring a curse upon himself.

If you think me wrong, then show me why in LOGIC.

Which is the former and which is the latter scenario in your post?
Would you point them out or highlight them please?
Thank you!

[Michael Joseph]

Would the USE be vested in the trustee or the beneficiary or it depends based on forum of adjudication (Common Law vs. Equity)?
The term USE also refers to purpose.

It is like this: the Trustee Undertakes by paying a Grantor and the the Grantor performs by transferring the estate or a portion thereof to the Trustee - this forms the contract whereupon is the basis of Trust. Now then the Use is made in the Trustee for the benefit of another. We have not yet described the other yet have we.

Sometimes and in fact most times, the Grantor can make an Irrevocable Grant [absent strings attached] and then said man in the office of Grantor then takes the office of Beneficiary. Therefore the USE is made IN TRUST by TRUST AGREEMENT in the Trustee for the Beneficiary.

And then sometimes the Grant is NOT irrevocable whereby the Grantor may revoke the Grant or portion thereof for cause - depending on the TRUST AGREEMENT. Of course the Trustee may receive the Grant with or without consideration for Trustee Services.

Sort of Like The following:

THIS AGREEMENT, CONVEYANCE and ACCEPTANCE is made and entered onto at the time and on the date appearing in the acknowledgement attached hereto and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein, by and between, Name of Grantor, Settlor and Creator, who drafted this EXPRESS TRUST as THE GRANTOR, SETTLOR AND CREATOR HEREOF, hereinafter “Creator” or “CREATOR”, and Name of First Trustee, ACCEPTOR and FIRST TRUSTEE hereof in joint tenancy who shall initially compose THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES for conducting said business.

THE CREATOR hereby constitutes and appoints the above-designated TRUSTEE (S) to be, in fact, TRUSTEE (S) of the TRUST hereby created and established. THE CREATOR for and in consideration of the objects and purposes herein set forth, the sum of Consideration in hand paid and other considerations of value, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby agrees to arrange for exchange, conveyance or an assignment to be delivered to said TRUSTEE (S), IN TRUST – said TRUSTEE (S), and his or her successor’s in office, are to hold legal title in joint tenancy and not as tenants in common, to collectively act by virtue of this covenant as BOARD OF TRUSTEES under the name thereunder, dealing in equities, formulae, entities, patents, copyrights, business goodwill, or other Business desired to be engaged in by said TRUSTEE(S).


This declaration of a TRUST ORGANIZATION
Authorizes its TRUSTEE (S) to Operate Under
The Name of


NAME OF TRUST

PREAMBLE


All parties to this Contract are of lawful age to act and are mentally capable to Contract. All parties further acknowledge that they fully understand the obligations this Contract encompasses and imposes upon them and by their signature and seal do hereby accept their respective positions in this Contract creating this Trust.

-----------

1. First there exists a contract and an exchange of consideration for said contract.
2. The Trustee pays for the Privilege to UNDERTAKE.
3. The Grantor Grants the Estate to the Trustee to hold in Trust FBO another.
4. The Trustee receives the Estate.

That in equal exchange for the conveyances ascribed in this Agreement, the Trustees shall issue to the Grantor(s) named herein one-hundred (100) Units of Beneficial Interest. These Units are non-transferable. The Trustee(s), on written order of the Grantor, shall transfer the future right to receive distribution of said 100 Units of Beneficial Interest to, and among, the designated Beneficiaries, if any, by cancelling the original written order of the Grantor(s) and issuing new Certificates of Beneficial Interest. The right of distribution of the Beneficial Interest is personal property of the holder and all rights of that personal property are possessed by the holder of the Certificate of Benefficial Interest.


-----------

Questions:

What did the Trustee give to the Grantor for Consideration of the Estate?

What did the Grantor grant?

If I issue an original to another, can you now see that I am in office of Grantor and the other is in office of Trust, if accepted, as Trustee? See now a confidence reposed in another? Else why would I issue anything to another?



-----------------------------------------


Equity begs a kingdom. An Estate. For the question begging to be answered is: Equity as measured by what? In what?

shalom,
mj


P.S. Those who will not labor to know what the terms they USE mean are as children being tossed to and fro by what they do not know. Hosea 4:6. Notice in the following said TERMS are codified referencing some PRECEDENT. However, any student of Scripture knows that said Precedent is unnecessary as I can know each and every term just by Quoting Scripture verse by verse. However, I have cut/paste from what most people trust in - Precedent - by the way to there great shame - so that my presentment is more easily comprehended.

So that one may know the TERMS:

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

USE, estates. A confidence reposed in another, who was made tenant of the land or terre tenant, that he should dispose of the land according to the intention of the cestui que use, or him to whose use it was granted, and suffer [allow] him to take the profits. Plowd. 352; Gilb. on Uses, 1; Bac. Tr. 150, 306; Cornish on Uses, 1 3; 1 Fonb. Eq. 363; 2 Id. 7; Sanders on Uses, 2; Co. Litt. 272, b; 1 Co. 121; 2 Bl. Com. 328; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1885, et seq.

2. In order to create a use, there must always be a good Consideration; though, when once raised, it [the USE] may be passed by grant to a stranger, without consideration. Doct. & Stu. , Dial. ch. 22, 23; Rob. Fr. Conv. 87, n.


Notice. in USE, it is the CESTUI QUE USE who gives the orders. Notice to create the Use there MUST be Good Consideration. Said Consideration may be the allowance in the Trustee to take [TAKE is an interesting TERM] the profits [personal property = derivative of the estate].

TAKE. This is a technical expression which signifies to be entitled to; as, a devisee will take under the will. To take also signifies to seize, as to take and carry away.

Question: Entitled by whom? The answer lies above in Use.

-------------------------------


Consider a possibility of Two Trust formations within the NAME of INHERITANCE = Surname. Does not the Male Son in inherit in his Father's Name? Specifically, the wife does not keep her Father's Name but assumes her Husband's name. Therefore the inheritance is in the Father's Name. It is the Father who Granted the Certificate of Live Birth. It was the Father, overshadowing the Son who ALLOWED the Son's fingerprints/footprints and perhaps blood sample, to be placed upon said Certificate.

To whom was said Certificate made the LIVERY upon? Was it not an OFFICE OF STATE? Is the office of Doctor Alien to the State? What then of the Heir? Where is the Heir? The Estate has been transferred into Trust for the benefit of the Heir! So again, where is the Heir? The State has EVERY right to hear any matter concerning the NAME of INHERITANCE as the State has the Legal Title. But the Heir has the Equitable Title! So again, for the third time, where is the Heir? Is the Heir DEAD? Is this not a valid presumption? Else, where is the Heir?

Now a Certificate of Beneficial Interest issues from the Trustee back upon the Grantor [Birth Certificate].

Why would the Heir UNDERTAKE by USING said Certificate of Beneficial Interest as an ID to obtain Driver's License, SSN, etc? See now a man Undertaking for the Grantor [State]? Tell me again, gainsayers: Who issues the Driver's License? Is it not the State, as Grantor? Then, who then is the Trustee?

In the former scenario, the State as Trustee, with the Legal Title and the man, as Administrator/Beneficiary with the Equitable Title.

In the latter scenario, the man as Trustee with the Legal Title [SUBJECT to EVERY statute made within the Trust Bylaws] and the Administration/Beneficiary in the State.

Maybe now you better comprehend why the Attorneys speak of TAXPAYER ENTITLEMENTS.


-------------------------------

This is the Technology of Balaam - Numbers 24-26. Israel must VOLUNTARILY bring a curse upon himself.

If you think me wrong, then show me why in LOGIC.

[shikamaru]

I find very few Laws or Statutes regarding "personal property" - yet there are many regarding "real property" or "real estate". Therefore why not LET out both the Legal AND Equitable Title to an Asset creating a USE in the Trustee such that the "avails, proceeds and profits" that are DERIVED from said asset become "personal property" to the Beneficial Interest CERTIFICATE HOLDER - bearer or named.

Property begs a Survey and Survey begs a Boundary [closed] = Trust.


Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Would the USE be vested in the trustee or the beneficiary or it depends based on forum of adjudication (Common Law vs. Equity)?
The term USE also refers to purpose.

[Michael Joseph]

The interesting aspect concerning gage to me was the presumption it is an income producing asset.

The income from the asset goes to pay off the mortgage in the case of a vif-gage (live gage, promise).

Other items that interested me was who held what in terms of title, conveyance, and rights of redemption.

ASSETS. The property in the hands of an heir, executor, administrator or trustee, which is legally or equitably chargeable with the obligations, which such heir, executor, administrator or other trustee, is, as such, required to discharge, is called assets. The term is derived from the French word assez, enough; that is, the heir or trustee has enough property. But the property is still called assets, although there may not be enough to discharge all the obligations; and the heir, executor, &c., is chargeable in distribution as far as such property extends.

2. Assets are sometimes divided by all the old writers, into assets enter mains and assets per descent; considered as to their mode of distribution, they are 1egal or equitable; as to the property from which they arise, they are real or personal.

3. Assets enter maim, or assets in hand, is such property as at once comes to the executor or other trustee, for the purpose of satisfying claims against him as such. Termes de la Ley.

4. Assets per descent, is that portion of the ancestor's estate which descends to the heir, and which is sufficient to charge him, as far as it goes, with the specialty debts of his ancestor. 2 Williams on Ex. 1011.

5. Legal assets, are such as constitute the fund for the payment of debts according to their legal priority.

6. Equitable assets, are such as can be reached only by the aid of a court of equity, and are to be divided,, pari passu, among all the creditors; as when a debtor has made his property subject to his debts generally, which, without his act would not have been so subject. 1 Madd. Ch. 586; 2 Fonbl. 40 1, et seq.; Willis on Trust, 118.

7. Real assets, are such as descend to the heir, as in estate in fee simple.

8. Personal assets, are such goods and chattels to which the executor or administrator is entitled.

9. In commerce, by assets is understood all the stock in trade, cash, and all available property belonging to a merchant or company. Vide, generally, Williams on Exec. Index, h. t.; Toll. on Exec. Index, h. t.; 2 Bl. Com. 510, 511; 3 Vin. Ab. 141; 11 Vin. Ab. 239; 1 Vern. 94; 3 Ves. Jr. 117; Gordon's Law of Decedents, Index, h. t.; Ram on Assets.


--------------------

I find very few Laws or Statutes regarding "personal property" - yet there are many regarding "real property" or "real estate". Therefore why not LET out both the Legal AND Equitable Title to an Asset creating a USE in the Trustee such that the "avails, proceeds and profits" that are DERIVED from said asset become "personal property" to the Beneficial Interest CERTIFICATE HOLDER - bearer or named.

Property begs a Survey and Survey begs a Boundary [closed] = Trust.


Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

[David Merrill]

Thank you. That is worth processing. Vif-gage.

[shikamaru]

I presumed he was teasing us with HJR-192.

It becomes quite obvious that mort=death and gage=promise. Mortgage is a death-promise. There arises the word debt=death.

Fed banks buy and sell death by substitution. And in a world where peace is worthless. I read the Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. I want to be quoted:


Peace is valuable.

The interesting aspect concerning gage to me was the presumption it is an income producing asset.

The income from the asset goes to pay off the mortgage in the case of a vif-gage (live gage, promise).

Other items that interested me was who held what in terms of title, conveyance, and rights of redemption.

[David Merrill]

I presumed he was teasing us with HJR-192.

It becomes quite obvious that mort=death and gage=promise. Mortgage is a death-promise. There arises the word debt=death.

Fed banks buy and sell death by substitution. And in a world where peace is worthless. I read the Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. I want to be quoted:


Peace is valuable.

[shikamaru]

Mere definitions are okay. What about the etymology of the term mortgage?

What about the term, gage? You've heard of a mortgage. What about a vif-gage?

The cursory information is all well and good, but what about the origin, history, development, breadth, and depth of a mortgage?

http://books.google.com/books?id=rwczAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+mortgage&hl=en&ei=C0HjTsXHIYTv0gGT9p2JBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=law%20of%20mortgage&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nZsDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+mortgage&hl=en&ei=C0HjTsXHIYTv0gGT9p2JBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CFgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=law%20of%20mortgage&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5R0zAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+mortgage&hl=en&ei=C0HjTsXHIYTv0gGT9p2JBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=law%20of%20mortgage&f=false

What about title theory states vs. lien theory states?

What about title theory states vs lien theory states?

Did you see what I did there, motla68?

There are dictionaries.
There are encyclopedias.
There is the etymology of the word.
There are treatises whether legal, historical, sociological, or others.
There are statutes, acts, rules, regulations, congressional reports, legal theories, and court cases on the subject.
There are the instruments themselves with its writings.
There are archives.

[shikamaru]

What is a lien?

LIEN, contractsSource)

[shikamaru]

What is a mortgage?

MORTGAGE, contracts, conveyancing. Mortgages are of several kinds: as the concern the kind of property, mortgaged, they are mortgages of lands, tenements, and, hereditaments, or of goods and chattels; as they affect the title of the thing mortgaged, they are legal and equitable.

2. In equity all kinds of property; real or personal, which are capable of an absolute sale, may be the subject of a mortgage; rights in remainder and reversion, franchises, and choses in action, may, therefore, be mortgaged; But a mere possibility or expectancy, as that of an heir, cannot. 2 Story, Eq. Jur. 1021; 4 Kent, Com. 144; 1 Powell, Mortg. 17, 23; 3 Meri. 667.

3. A legal mortgage of lands may be described to be a conveyance of lands, by a debtor to his creditor, as a pledge and security for the repayment of a sum of money borrowed, or performance of a covenant; 1 Watts, R. 140; with a proviso, that such conveyance shall be void on payment of the money and interest on a certain day, or the performance of such covenant by the time appointed, by which the conveyance of the land becomes absolute at law, yet the, mortgagor has an equity of redemption, that is, a right in equity on the performance of the agreement within a reasonable time, to call for a re-conveyance of the land. Cruise, Dig. t. 15, c. 1, s. 11; 1 Pow. on Mortg. 4 a, n.; 2 Chip. 100; 1 Pet. R. 386; 2 Mason, 531; 13 Wend. 485; 5 Verm. 532; 1 Yeates, 579; 2 Pick. 211.

4. It is an universal rule in equity that once a mortgage, always a mortgage; 2 Cowen, R. 324; 1 Yeates, R. 584; every attempt, therefore, to defeat the equity of redemption, must fail. See Equity of Redemption.

5. As to the form, such a mortgage must be in writing, when it is intended to convey the legal title. 1 Penna. R. 240. It is either in one single deed which contains the whole contract - and which is the usual form - or, it is two separate instruments, the one containing an absolute conveyance, and the other a defeasance. 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 189; 15 Johns. R. 555; 2 Greenl. R. 152; 12 Mass. 456; 7 Pick. 157; 3 Wend, 208; Addis. 357; 6 Watts, 405; 3 Watts, 188; 3 Fairf. 346; 7 Wend. 248. But it may be observed in general, that whatever clauses or covenants there are in a conveyance, though they seem to import an absolute disposition or conditional purchase, yet if, upon the whole, it appears to have been the intention of the parties that such conveyance should be a mortgage only, or pass an estate redeemable, a court of equity will always so construe it. Vern. 183, 268, 394; Prec Ch. 95; 1 Wash. R 126; 2 Mass. R. 493; 4 John. R. 186; 2 Cain. Er. 124.

6. As the money borrowed on mortgage is seldom paid on the day appointed, mortgages have now become entirely subject to the court of chancery, where it is an established rule that the mortgagee holds the estate merely as a pledge or security for the repayment of his money; therefore a mortgage is considered in equity as personal estate.

7. The mortgagor is held to be the real owner of the land, the debt being considered the principal, and the land the accessory; whenever the debt is discharged, the interest of the mortgagee in the lands determines of course, and he is looked on in equity as a trustee for the mortgagor.

8. An equitable mortgage of lands is one where the mortgagor does not convey regularly the land, but does some act by which he manifests his determination to bind the same for the security of a debt he owes. An agreement in writing to transfer an estate as a security for the repayment of a sum of money borrowed, or even a deposit of title deeds, and a verbal agreement, will have the same effect of creating an equitable mortgage. 1 Rawle, Rep. 328; 5 Wheat. R. 284; 1 Cox's Rep. 211. But in Pennsylvania there is no such a thing as an equitable mortgage. 3 P. S. R. 233. Such an agreement will be carried into execution in equity against the mortgagor, or any one claiming under him with notice, either actual or constructive, of such deposit having been made. 1 Bro. C. C. 269; 2 Dick. 759; 2 Anstr. 427; 2 East, R. 486; 9 Ves. jr. 115; 11 Ves. jr. 398, 403; 12 Ves. jr. 6, 192; 1 John. Cas. 116; 2 John. Ch. R. 608; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. 1020. Miller, Eq. Mortg. passim.

9. A mortgage of goods is distinguishable from a mere pawn. 5 Verm. 532; 9 Wend. 80; 8 John. 96. By a grant or conveyance of goods in gage or mortgage, the whole legal title passes conditionally to the mortgagee, and if not redeemed at the time stipulated, the title becomes absolute at law, though equity will interfere to compel a redemption. But, in a pledge, a special property only passes to the pledgee, the general property remaining in the pledger. There have been some cases of mortgages of chattels, which have been held valid without any actual possession in the mortgagee; but they stand upon very peculiar grounds and may be deemed exceptions to the general rule. 2 Pick. R. 607; 5 Pick. R. 59; 5 Johns. R. 261; Sed vide 12 Mass. R. 300; 4 Mass. R. 352; 6 Mass. R. 422; 15 Mass. R. 477; 5 S. & R. 275; 12 Wend. 277: 15 Wend. 212, 244; 1 Penn. 57. Vide, generally,, Powell on Mortgages; Cruise, Dig. tit. 15; Viner, Ab. h. t.; Bac. Ab. h. t., Com. Dig. h. t.; American Digests, generally, h. t.; New, York Rev. Stat. p. 2, c. 3; 9 Wend. 80; 9 Greenl. 79; 12 Wend. 61; 2 Wend. 296; 3 Cowen, 166; 9 Wend. 345; 12 Wend. 297; 5 Greenl. 96; 14 Pick. 497; 3 Wend. 348; 2 Hall, 63; 2 Leigh, 401; 15 Wend. 244; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

10. It is proper to, observe that a conditional sale with the right to repurchase very nearly resembles a mortgage; but they are distinguishable. It is said that if the debt remains, the transaction is a mortgage, but if the debt is extinguished by mutual agreement, or the money advanced is not loaned, but the grantor has a right to refund it in a given time, and have a reconveyance, this is a conditional sale. 2 Edw. R. 138; 2 Call, R. 354; 5 Gill & John. 82; 2 Yerg. R. 6; 6 Yerg. R. 96; 2 Sumner, R. 487; 1 Paige, R. 56; 2 Ball & Beat. 274. In cases of doubt, however, courts of equity will always lean in favor of a mortgage. 7 Cranch, R. 237; 2 Desaus. 564.

11. According to the laws of Louisiana a mortgage is a right granted to the creditor over the property of his debtor, for the security of his debt, and gives him the power of having the property seized and sold in default of payment. Civ. Code of Lo. art. 3245.

12. Mortgage is conventional, legal or judicial. 1st. The conventional mortgage is a contract by which a person binds the whole of his property, or a portion of it only, in favor of another, to secure the execution of some engagement, but without divesting himself of the possession. Civ. Code, art. 3257.

13. - 2d. Legal mortgage is that which is created by operation of law: this is also called tacit mortgage, because it is established by the law, without the aid of any agreement. Art. 3279. A few examples will show the nature of this mortgage. Minors, persons interdicted, and absentees, "have a legal mortgage on the property of their tutors and curators, as a security for their administration; and the latter have a mortgage on the property of the former for advances which they have made. The property of persons who, without being lawfully appointed curators or tutors of minors, &c., interfere with their property, is bound by a legal mortgage from the day on which the first act of interference was done.

14. - 3d. The judicial mortgage is that resulting from judgments, whether these be rendered on contested cases or by default, whether they be final or provisional, in favor of the person obtaining them. Art. 3289.

15. Mortgage, with respect to the manner in which it binds the property, is divided into general mortgage, or special mortgage. General mortage is that which binds all the property, present or future, of the debtor. Special mortgage is that which binds only certain specified property. Art. 3255.

16. The following objects are alone susceptible of mortgage: 1. Immovables, subject to alienation, and their accessories considered likewise as immovable. 2. The usufruct of the same description of property with its accessories during the time of its duration. 3. Slave's. 4. Ships and other vessels. Art. 3256. (Source)

Who are the parties to a mortgage?

MORTGAGEE, estates, contracts. He to whom a mortgage is made.

2. He is entitled to the payment of the money secured to him by the mortgage; he has the legal estate in the land mortgaged, and may recover it in ejectment, on the other hand he cannot commit waste; 4 Watts, R. 460; he cannot make leases to the injury of the mortgagor; and he must account for the profits he receives out of the thing mortgaged when in possession. Cruise, Dig. tit. 15, c. 2.

MORTGAGOR, estate's, contracts. He who makes a mortgage.

2. He has rights, and is liable to certain duties as such. 1. He is quasi tenant, at will; he is entitled to an equity of redemption after forfeiture. 2. He cannot commit waste, nor make a lease injurious to the mortgagee. As between the mortgagor and third persons, the mortgagor is owner of the land. Dougl. 632; 4 M'Cord, R. 310; 3 Fairf. R. 243; but see 3 Pick. R. 204; 1 N. H. Rep. 171; 2 N. H. Rep. 16; 10 Conn. R. 243; 1 Vern. 3; 2 Vern. 621; 1 Atk. 605. He can, however, do nothing which will defeat the rights of the mortgagee, as, to make a lease to bind him. Dougl. 21. Vide Mortgagee; 2 Jack. & Walk. 194. (Source).