40 Mich. 203 (Mich. 1879), Richardson v. Alpena Lumber Co.

Citation:40 Mich. 203
Opinion Judge:Marston, J.
Party Name:Chas. W. Richardson et al. v. The Alpena Lumber Co
Attorney:Kelley & Clayberg for plaintiff in error. Holmes & Carpenter for defendant in error.
Judge Panel:Marston, J. The other Justices concurred.
Case Date:January 21, 1879
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 203

40 Mich. 203 (Mich. 1879)

Chas. W. Richardson et al.

v.

The Alpena Lumber Co

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 21, 1879

January 9, 1879; January 10, 1879, Submitted

Error to Alpena. Submitted January 9 and 10. Decided January 21.

Page 204

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Kelley & Clayberg for plaintiff in error. A mortgage on a stock of goods is not void for uncertainty, People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28, and cases; nor one upon a drove of cattle, Brown v. Holmes, 13 Kan. 482; any description is sufficient that enables third persons to identify the property, aided by inquiries which the mortgage itself indicates, Lawrence v. Evarts, 7 Ohio St., 194; and if good between the parties it is good as to all who have actual knowledge, American Cigar Co. v. Foster, 36 Mich. 368; Robson v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 37 Mich. 70; a mortgage upon a quantity of logs in the mass, with power to take possession, gives the right of selection, Call v. Gray, 37 N.H. 428; Gardner v. Dutch, 9 Mass. 427; Shumway v. Rutter, 7 Pick. 56; a mortgage is not absolutely void for an indefinite description, but may be explained by parol, Sargeant v. Solberg, 22 Wis. 132; Eddy v. Caldwell, 7 Minn. 225; Bell v. Prewitt, 62 Ill. 361; Stephens v. Tucker, 55 Ga. 543; Willey v. Snyder, 34 Mich. 60; Hardy v. Matthews, 38 Mo. 121; Bell v. Woodward, 46 N.H. 315; Midlothian etc. Co. v. Finney, 18 Gratt. 304; Wing v. Gray, 36 Vt. 261; Conkling v. Shelley, 28 N.Y. 360; Elder v. Miller, 60 Me. 118; Duke v. Strickland, 43 Ind. 494; a mortgage description that is indefinite because it covers property that is in a mass, may be made definite and valid by a separation, delivery, or taking possession under the mortgage, Morrow v. Reed, 30 Wis. 81; Weld v. Cutler, 2 Gray 195; Crofoot v. Bennett, 2 N.Y. 258; Brewer v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 511; Croswell v. Allis, 25 Conn. 301; Read v. Wilson, 22 Ill. 377; Brown v. Webb, 20 Ohio 389; Williams v. Briggs, 11 R.I. 476.

Holmes & Carpenter for defendant in error. A sale of a stated quantity of logs does not pass title until they are measured and separated from the common mass (Whitcomb v. Whitney, 24 Mich. 486; First Nat. Bank v. Crowley, id., 492; Adams Mining Co. v. Senter, 26 Mich. 73; Ortman v. Green, id. 209; Lingham v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 324; Hahn v. Fredericks, 30 Mich. 223, and cases) and the same rule should govern property covered by a chattel mortgage, Merrill v. Hunnewell, 13 Pick. 213; Young v. Austin, 6 Pick. 280; Barry v. Bennett, 7 Metc. 354; the property should be so described that it may be readily distinguished from other property of the same nature with which it is commingled, Montgomery v. Wight, 8 Mich. 143; Golden v. Cockril, 1 Kan. 259; McCord v. Cooper, 30 Ind. 9; if it cannot be identified...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP