
    
      No. 2.
    CATLIN against CHITTENDEN & CO.
    
      Chittenden,
    
    1819.
    WHERE! a conveyance, of land, is made, as security for a pre-existing debt, it is a mortgage, whatever may be the words of the condition, and, once a mortgage, it ies always- a mortgage.
    In all cases of mortgage, the mortgagee has a right to collect his debt, independent of the mortgage.
    ACTION on book. The case was, that before the commencement of the present action, Giles T. Chittenden, executed to the plaintiff a deed of lands, in Burlington, and a deed of lands in Colchester; and, on the execution of said deeds, the said Giles took from the said Guy Catlin, a memorandum, in writing, as follows :
    “Received, at Quebec-, this 14th day of August, 1816, from Giles T. Chittenden, his two deeds of this date, conveying lands in the towns of Burlington and Colchester... Now, therefore, if the said Giles shall pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Guy Catlin, a certain note, for the sum of six thousand dollars, with the interest thereon.; also, the amount due the said Guy Catlin, from the said Giles T. Chittenden & Co. an.d' also pay the said Gatlin’s expences, and a compensation for his journey to this place, and also his expenses of sending money to Nevdj York, in sixty days from date hereof; then, and in that c-u the said Catiin is to release to said Chittenden, the lands above-mentioned ; but, if the said Chittenden shall neglect or refuse to pay as abovementioned, the deeds, here mentioned, are held by said Catiin, in full payment of the sums abovementioned which memorandum was duly recorded.
    Upon these facts the Judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and a verdict was returned, that the plaintiff ought to be barred.
    Exceptions by plaintiff, and motion for new trial.
    
      Van Ness, in support of the motion,
    contended :
    That the deeds, in this case, were taken to secure pre-exist-ing debts, the execution of the receipt, and the recording the same, gave to the plaintiff only the interest of a mortgagee; the strong words used at the end of the receipt could not destroy the equity of redemption of Chittenden, of course Cat-iin must have the right to collect his debt.
    
      Contra. Jldams :
    That the reception, by Catiin, of the deeds described in this case, was in full satisfaction of the said Catlin’s book account, that although the Chittendens have recorded the memorandum and thereby rendered the deeds de-feasable ; yet the said Catlin’s original demands are not thereby revived.
   By the Court.

In all cases where the conveyance is a mortgage, the rights of the parties are reciprocal; the mortgagor has a right to redeem, and the mortgagee to collect his debt.

In this case the conveyances and receipt shew that the land was holden by the plaintiff as security for a pre-existing debt; .as the conveyance was a mortgage in its origin it continues a mortgage to the present time ; the interest of the plaintiff in the land, is that of a mortgagee, and he has a right to suei for his debt.

New trial not granted.  