17 F. 776 (E.D.Ark. 1883), Mitchell v. Roberts

Citation:17 F. 776
Party Name:MITCHELL and another v. ROBERTS, as Assignee, etc.
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 776

17 F. 776 (E.D.Ark. 1883)

MITCHELL and another

v.

ROBERTS, as Assignee, etc.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

April Term, 1883

The plaintiff B. E. Mitchell was the payee and owner of two negotiable promissory notes executed by one A. H. Blythe, each for the sum of $1,000 which he indorsed and delivered to the Commercial Bank of Texarkana for collection. Subsequently his brother, S. T. Mitchell, borrowed $500 on his own account from the bank, for which he executed his note, and to secure its payment assumed, as agent for B. E. Mitchell, to pledge the two Blythe notes belonging to the latter, and then held by the bank for collection. S. T. Mitchell tendered payment of his note after its maturity, and afterwards, as agent for B. E. Mitchell, demanded the surrender of the pledged notes. The defendant declined to accept the tender or deliver the notes, upon the ground tat B. E. Mitchell was liable to the bank upon his indorsement of the note of one H. M. Beidler for $350; and afterwards advertised the notes for sale to pay the note of S. T. Mitchell and the

Page 777

Briedler note. Thereupon the bill in this case was filed, setting up the tender, and praying for an injunction to restrain the sale of the pledged notes, and for a decree requiring the defendant to surrender the same to the plaintiff B. E. Mitchell. The tender was not brought into court, and the bill does not offer to pay the S. T. Mitchell note. The answer admits the tender of the amount due on the S. T. Mitchell note, and alleges it was not accepted and the pledge surrendered because B. E. Mitchell was indebted to the bank in the further sum of $350 on his indorsement of the Beidler note. The tender was not refused because it was coupled with any condition, but because it did not include the amount of the Beidler note.

Joyner & Byrne, for plaintiffs.

O. D. Scott and J. M. Moore, for defendant.

CALDWELL, J.

The authority of S. T. Mitchell to pledge the Blythe notes, belonging to his brother, as security for his own note of $500, is not open to contestation. The original bill expressly admits his authority to do so; and the amended bill admits it by implication and ratifies the act, and pleads the tender of the amount due on the S. T. Mitchell note in extinguishment of the lien of the pledge.

It is equally clear the Blythe notes were not pledged as security for the Beidler note discounted to the bank by B. E. Mitchell. The answer alleges that Mitchell's liability as indorser of this note was fixed by due presentment for payment and notice of non-payment. This is denied by the replication, and there is no proof to support the answer. It is clear, therefore, upon the case as it stands, that the assignee had no right to restrain the Blythe notes as a pledge for the payment of the Beidler note, because it is not shown that the bank or its assignee had any claim against B. E. Mitchell on account of his indorsement of that note or otherwise. The following, then, are the facts upon which the case must turn: The debt due the bank was the debt of S. T. Mitchell. The notes pledged to secure its payment were the property of B. E. Mitchell. The debtor, S. T. Mitchell, tendered to the defendant, who is assignee of the bank, the full amount of the debt after its maturity, and as the authorized agent of B. E. Mitchell demanded the return of the notes pledged as security.

Upon these facts is the plaintiff B. E. Mitchell entitled to recover the notes belonging to him, and which were pledged to secure the payment of the debt of S. T. Mitchell, without paying the latter's debt? This question is of easy solution, both upon principle and authority. The transaction was not a mortgage, but a pledge, and must be tested by the rules applicable to that class of bailments. This distinction is important. Mr. Parsons says: 'The difference between a pledge and a mortgage has not until lately been strongly marked. In recent times, however, and in this country, this distinction is assuming a new importance. In all our commercial cities the pledging of personal property, especially of stocks, has been very common, and recent cases have established, or at least affirmed, rights

Page 778

and liabilities peculiar to such contracts, and quite different from those which attend a mortgage.' 2 Pars.Cont. 112; Jones, Chat. Mortg. Sec. 7.

In a late work the difference between a mortgage and a pledge of stocks is concisely stated. 'A mortgage,' says the author, 'is a sale of the stock by way of securing a debt, with a condition that if the mortgagor pays the debt the sale shall be void; a pledge contains no words of sale, but an authority, if the debt is not paid, to sell the pledge for that purpose. In the former case the title passes to the mortgagee; in the latter, the title remains in the pledgeor, although possession is given to the pledgee. ' Dos Passos, Stock Brokers, 658.

At common law a mortgage was a conveyance to the mortgagee, to be void upon condition the mortgagor paid the debt at the specified day, and to become absolute on failure so to pay. The mortgagee was invested with the legal title. It was not necessary to the validity of the mortgage that the possession was in him. The mortgagee acquired the title of the property, and the mortgagor parted with the title as in the case of sale, reserving only the right to defeat the transfer and reacquire the property by paying the debt on the day named. If the mortgagor paid the debt or made a legal tender of it at the specified day, the condition of the mortgage was satisfied, and the property forever discharged from the incumbrance; but upon default of payment according to the condition, the absolute title, at law, vested in the mortgagee.

A pledge is a bailment of personal property as a security for some debt or engagement. It is completed by a delivery of the property; it does not transfer the title; it only gives the pledgee a lien upon the property for his debt, and the right to retain the possession until his debt is paid. But the non-payment of the debt, even after it is due, does not work a forfeiture of the pledge; the title remains in the pledgeor until it is divested either by a foreclosure in equity or by a sale on due notice. Story, Bailm. Secs. 286, 287, 308-310; Edw. Bailm. Secs. 245, 279.

Where the thing pledged is a chose in action, the term 'collateral security' is now most commonly applied to the transaction, and is the term used by the parties in this case; but this change of name has worked no change in the law.

At common law a tender of the mortgage debt on the law-day satisfies the condition of the mortgage, and discharges the property from the incumbrance as effectually as...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP