55 P. 562 (Utah 1898), Jacobson v. Christensen
|Citation:||55 P. 562, 18 Utah 149|
|Opinion Judge:||BARTCH, J.|
|Party Name:||JACOB JACOBSEN AND J. N. JOHNSON, APPELLANTS v. REUBEN CHRISTIANSEN, RESPONDENT|
|Attorney:||J. B. Jennings, Attorney for Appellants. Reid & Cherry, Attorneys for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., and MINER, J., concur. ZANE, C. J., and MINER, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 06, 1898|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Utah|
Appeal from the District Court of Sevier county, Hon. W. M. McCarty, Judge.
Action by plaintiff against defendant for the conversion of certain sheep upon which plaintiff claimed to hold a chattel mortgage. From a judgment of dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of description in the mortgage, plaintiffs appeal.
The description in the mortgage was sufficient. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, Secs. 53, 54, 54a; Carbin v. Kincaid, 7 P. 147; Scrofford v. Gibbons, 24 P. 968; Davis v. Pitcher, 59 Am. St. 392, note; Kimball v. Sattley, 45 Am. Rep. 614, note; Barrett v. Fisch, 14 Am. St. 238, note.
"A mortgage of a specified number of articles out of a larger number is void for uncertainty, when the particular articles intended to be conveyed are not separated or designated in any way, so that they can be separated from others of the same kind." Jones on Chattel Mortgages, 3d ed. Sec. 56; Souders v. Vorhees, (Kans.) 12 P. 526; Clark v. Vorhees, (Kans.) 12 P. 529; Blakely v. Patrick 67 N.C. 40, same case 22 Am. Rep. 600; Parker v. Chase, 62 Vt. 206, same case 22 Am. St. Rep. 99; Avery v. Popper, (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W. 325; Richardson v. Alpena Lumber Co., 40 Mich. 203; Case v. Gunnison, 58 Mich. 108; Stonebraker v. Ford, 81 Mo. 532; Croswell v. Allis, 25 Conn. 301; Price v. McComas, 21 Neb. 195, same case 31 N.W. 511; Thomas on Chattel Mortgages and Con. Sales, see 114.
[18 Utah 150]
This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages in the sum of $ 746, for the alleged wrongful conversion of a certain number of sheep by the defendant. The action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs appealed.
[18 Utah 151] The decisive question is whether the chattel mortgage, on which the suit appears to be founded, is void for insufficiency of description, for unless the mortgage was valid and created a lien on the property, the plaintiffs have shown no right of recovery. The description contained in the instrument, reads: "Seven hundred head of good stock sheep, marked upper bit and under slit in each...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP