5i52. FEDEdAli EEPOETCB^ , ., �was called a lease, but .which the co);rt decided \?iC,8 a sale, aii)i the lease was a device by w-ti/ch oiae party soyght t<? give and the other to obtain.aBeer(E!t lien for tli^e unpaid purcibase money. The underlying principle of these cases is that sijch agreements, ■wiietheV""cailed le^ses or conditional sales, are intended to retain a secret lien for the unpaid p.urchase njoney, and are an evasion of the statiite, The supreine court has not decided that. all conditional sales, eyeji - as against a bona fide purehaser or cr^ditors.; are invalid, but have decided that, on the question of whether or not thereg- istration act of a state includes a conditional sale, it will be ciSuii'dlledby the decisions ofthat siate. _ Ifjlie learn^d conwQl fiiiQFosdack y. Schall, 97 U. S. 235, as sustaining the defendant's contract, but I think that case in per^cct hfirpiony ,wit,h the' c^thers. . . Tl^ere* the- question ,-^as \yj[iat a mortgagee,*Ti^ould ;tafee. unfier the iprpvi&ion of.fhis; mortgage for fu^ure-f|rcquiri^4 P^opei'ty* v. The court heldit^at thic œortgg-gee took lonly, t^e rights a,pdi interfist of the. mortf g^gor^ and subjeot to,>i^y Jien that migi^t bp wpoa the pwi^eity wjien acquired; by theciortgagor. The carsin that case were l^ttered to show that they wcre fitill the propertyof the seller, but the decision was^not' pu| upon thip faot.. �The lea^riied coun^el, however,r ingists that the agreement of, the defendant is not lia,ble to the objections which existftd iii the agreements whioh the court coasid^red in the cases which we have been eonsidering. He lays much 8tres8:.upon the language of the supreine opurt iia.Heryford t. Davis, in ■which that court say, in discussing the contract in that case: �"If that contract was a mere lease of the cai's to the railroad company, orii it wa3 only a conditional sale which did Bot pass the ownership until the condition should be performed, the propertj was not subject to levy and sale under exemption at the suit of the defendant against the com- pany." �This language, read by itself, would be misleading. It should be read in connection, with other parts of the opinion, and when that is done it will be seen that the court means hy "only a conditional sale" on s that is rcally a conditional sale both to the buyer and seller; that is, that the payment of ��� �
