17. Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 218, 237, 3 L. Ed. 321; Flagg.v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 486, Fed. Cas. No. 4847; American Mortgage Co. v. Williams, 103 Ark. 484, 145 S. W. 234; Montgomery v. Spect, 55 Cal. 352; Keithley v. Wood, 151 111. 566, 42 Am. St. Rep. 265, 38 N. E. 149; Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Scandia v. Kackley, 88 Kan. 70, 127 Pac. 539; Hopper v. Smyser,

90 Md. 363, 45 Atl. 206; Burns v. Hunnewell, 217 Mass. 106, 104 N. E. 494; Branham v. Peltzer, - (Mo.) -, 177 S. W. 373; Gibson v. Morris State Bank, 49 Mont. 60, 140 Pac. 76; Caro v. Wollen-berg, 68 Ore. 420, 136 Pac. 866; Wallace v. Smith, 155 Pa. St. 78, 35 Am. St. Rep. 868, 25 Atl. 807; Johnson v. National Bank of Commerce of Tacoma, 65 Wash. 261, L. R. A. 1916B4, 118 Pac. 21.

18. Conway v. Alexander, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 218, 3 L. Ed. 321; Arizona Copper Estate v. Watts, 237 Fed. 585, 150 C. C. A. 467; Martin v. Martin, 123 Ala. 191, 26 So. 525; Stollenwerck v. Marks & Gayle, 188 Ala. 587, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 981, 65 So. 1024; Holmes v. Warren, 145 Cal. 457, 78 Pac. 954; Keithley v. Wood, 151 111. 566, 42 Am. St. Rep. 265, 38 N. E. 149; Hopper v. Smyser, 90 Md. 363, 45 Atl. 206; Bobb v. Wolff, 148 Mo. 335, 49 S. W. 996; Samuelson v. Mickey, 73 Neb. 852, 103 N. W. 671, 106 N. W. 461; Jones v. Jones, 20 S. D. 632, 108 N. W. 23; Sadler v. Taylor. 49 W. Va. 104, 38 S. E. 583.

That the grantor retains possession or control of the property tends to show that it has not passed out of his hands by an absolute conveyance.22 Furthermore, whether the grantor or the grantee pays the taxes may have a bearing on the true character of the transaction.23 That the grantor has for a considerable length of time after the making of the conveyance refrained from asserting any rights as mortgagor or from seeking to have the instrument declared a mortgage tends to show that it was an absolute conveyance.24 That the sum paid by the grantee at the time of the making of the conveyance was much less than the value of the property tends strongly to show that the transaction was not a conveyance made in consideration of such sum, but was a mortgage made to secure its repayment.25

19. Floyer v. Lavington, 1 P. Wms. 268; Russell v. Southard, 12 How. (U. S.) 139, 13 L. Ed. 927; Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 486, Fed. Cas. No. 4,847; Locke v. Moulton, 96 Cal. 21, 30 Pac. 957; Horn v. Keteltas, 46 N. Y. 605; Kerr v. Gilmore, 6 Watts (Pa.) 405; Tuggle v. Berkeley, 101 Va. 83, 43 S. E. 199; Beverly v. Davis, 79 Wash. 537, 140 Pac. 696; Schriber v. Le Clair, 66 Wis. 579, 29 N. W. 570, 889.

20. Palmer v. City of Albuquerque, 19 N. M. 285, 142 Pac. 929; Campbell v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130, 12 Am. Rep. 671; Matthews v. Sheeham, 69 N. Y. 585; Brown v. Dewey, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 56; Kerr v. Gilmore, 6 Watts, (Pa.) 405; De Camp v. Crane, 19 N. J. Eq. 166.

21. Pest, Sec. 607 (b).

22. Parks v. Parks, 66 Ala. 326; Prefumo v. Russell, 148 Cal. 451, 83 Pac. 810; Ewart v. Walling, 42 111. 453; Wilson v. Patrick, 34 Iowa,

362; Hopper v. Smyser, 90 Md. 363, 45 Atl. 206; Campbell v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130, 12 Am. Rep. 671; Porter v. White, 128 N. C. 42, 38 S. E. 24; Pancake v. Cauffman, 114 Pa. 113, 7 Atl. 67. But that the possession and control continues in the grantor is not conclusive that the transaction is a mortgage, since the grantor may have taken a lease back from the grantee. See Darner Land, etc., Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 77 Ala. 184; Pancake v. Cauffman, 114 Pa. 113,

7 Atl. 67; Edwards v. Wall, 79 Va. 321. On the other hand the fact that a lease back is taken by the grantor is not conclusive that the conveyance is not a mortgage. Rogers v. Davis, 91 Iowa, 730, 59 N. W. 265; Bearss v. Ford, 108 111. 16; Brickie v. Leach, 55 S. C. 510, 3° S. E. 720; Woodward v. Pickett.

8 Gray (Mass.) 617.

23. Reeves v. Abercrombie, 108 Ala. 535, 19 So. 41; Hart v. Randolph, 142 111. 521, 32 N. E.

(d) Conveyance with right of repurchase. The fact that an absolute conveyance is accompanied by a bond to reconvey, or by an agreement that the grantor may repurchase within a given time, at the same or a different price, is not conclusive that the transaction is a mortgage. Such a transaction is perfectly valid and the right to repurchase is lost if not exercised within the stipulated time.26 A difficult question, how517; Frond v. Merritt, 99 Iowa, 410; Hopper v. Smyser, 90 Md. 363, 45 Atl. 206; O'Toole v. Omlie, 8 N. D. 444, 79 N. W. 849; Petty v. Petty, 52 S. C. 54, 29 S. E. 406; Hesser v. Brown, 40 Wash. 688, 82 Pac. 934.

24. Downing v. Woodstock Iron Co., 93 Ala. 262; Hart v. Randolph, 142 111. 521, 32 N. E. 517; Odenhaugh v. Bradford, 67 Pa. 96; Shriver v. Arthur, 54 S. C. 184, 32 S. E. 310; Hesser v. Brown, 40 Wash. 688, 82 Pac. 934.

25. Glass v. Hieronymus, 125 Ala. 140, 82 Am. St. Rep. 225, 2S So. 71; Wimberly v. Scoggin,

- Ark. -, 193 S. W. 264;

Husheon v. Husheon, 71 Cal. 407, 12 Pac. 410; Story v. Springer, 155 111. 25, 39 N. E. 570; Fort v. Colby. 165 Iowa, 95, 144 N. W. 393; Smith v. Berry, 155 Ky. 686, 160 S. W. 247; Campbell v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130, 12 Am. Rep. 671; Minty v. Soule, 182 Mich. 564, 148 N. W. 769; Klein v. Mc Namara, 54 Miss. 90; Temple Nat. Bank v. Warner, 92 Tex. 226, 47 S. W. 515; Rich v. Doane, 35 Vt. 125; Gilchrist v. Beswick, 33 W. Va. 168, 10 S. E. 371.

26. Thornborough v. Baker, 3 Swanst. 631; Barrell v. Sabine, 1 Vera. 268; Conway's Excrs. & Devisees v. Alexander, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 218, 3 L. Ed. 321; Hor-bach v. Hill, 112 U. S. 144, 28 L. Ed. 670; Hubert v. Slstrunk, - (Ala.) -, 53 So. 819; Rue v. Dole, 107 OH. 275; Bigler v. Jack. 114 Iowa, 667, 87 N. W. 700; Yost v. First Nat. Bank, 66 Kan. 605, 72 Pac. 209; Flagg v. Mann, 14 ever, frequently arises, as to whether a transaction in form a conveyance with a right of repurchase is not in fact a mortgage, as being intended to secure the payment of money, and a court of equity will closely scrutinize the transaction to see if such is the case, and will, if it appears to be such, give the grantor the right to redeem, with any other rights which belong to a mortgagor. In case of doubt, the courts incline to consider the transaction as in legal effect a mortgage, so as to place the burden of proof on the party asserting it to be merely a conveyance with the right of repurchase.27