Bateman v. Blake

• Decision Date: 06 June 1890
• Citation: 45 N.W. 831,81 Mich. 227
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BATEMAN v. BLAKE.

45 N.W. 831

81 Mich. 227

BATEMAN v. BLAKE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 6, 1890

Error to circuit court, Kent county; MARSDEN C. BURCH, Judge.

Replevin by Charles Bateman against Philip Blake. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Ward & Ward, for appellant.

Frank G. Holmes, for appellee.

CAHILL J.

This was an action of replevin, brought to recover the possession of certain household goods. The plaintiff claims them under two chattel mortgages,-one for $65, given by the defendant and his wife, June 15, 1887; and one for $11, given by the same parties, October 13, 1887. The defendant claims that these mortgages are paid; that this suit was not only commenced without right, but was prosecuted in a manner and under such circumstances as to be oppressive, and to entitle the defendant to claim damages therefor from the plaintiff. In the court below, the defendant recovered a judgment for the property and for $100 damages against the plaintiff. The case was tried before the Honorable MARSDEN C. BURCH, one of the circuit judges of the Kent circuit, without a jury, who at the request of counsel for plaintiff, made and filed a written finding of facts of his conclusions of law thereon, substantially as follows: (1) That in June 1887, the defendant and his wife executed a chattel mortgage to the plaintiff covering substantially all their household effects, for $65, on which they received $61 in cash, $3 being retained by plaintiff as advance interest, and $1, as it was termed, "for filing." This mortgage was given originally to secure a note due in 30 days, to draw interest at 10 per cent. after maturity. The defendant paid regularly thereafter, until about October 13th, following, $3 each month, the receipts given by plaintiff for these payments showing that the mortgage was extended from time to time for 30 days. On October 13th the defendant and his wife executed another mortgage to the plaintiff on the same property for $11, receiving $10 in money, and $1 being kept back "for filing." Monthly payments of $3.50 each were thereafter made by defendant to plaintiff for 19 or 20 months, at which time the defendant claimed that the mortgages were paid. But the plaintiff claimed that the monthly payments of $3, and then $3.50, respectively, made by the defendant, were considerations for extending the mortgages from month to month, and not payments on the mortgage debt. The court finds, upon computing interest on the amounts received by the parties from the plaintiff in executing such mortgages, that, at the time the suit was brought, both mortgages were fully paid, and more than paid, by a small amount, computing interest at 10 per cent., as provided in the mortgages. The court further finds from the testimony that, at the time of the execution of the said mortgage, the defendant and his wife had substantially no other property than that mentioned in the mortgages, and that their circumstances and conditions were that of comparative poverty; and at the time the goods were demanded, and the writ of replevin served, they were living in a humble way, and the defendant's child, a baby, lay sick in the house; and, in the absence of the defendant, about his duty in running upon a railroad train, the writ of replevin was served; the door of the house being left open in inclement weather; the carpets and everything being taken from the house, including the stove; that the pillow was taken from under the head of the baby lying sick in its crib; that the wife of the defendant was subjected to much humiliation and distress, and was obliged to lie upon the bare floor, and care for her sick child as best she could, until her husband's return, and they together were then obliged to take refuge with the wife's father and mother; and that the child took a severe cold under the circumstances, involving large expenses for doctors, and jeopardizing its life; and the testimony shows that, under the circumstances, the damages occasioned by the replevin of the goods were about $100. The court, therefore, finds as a matter of law that the mortgages were fully paid; that the circumstances of the seizure of the goods were aggravated; that the damages sustained by the defendant were $100, and therefore that a judgment should be entered for the defendant, and against the plaintiff, in the sum of $100, together with his costs to be taxed, and that he have execution therefor.

The trial judge rightly refused to treat the monthly payments as interest or compensation for extensions, or as anything else than payments on the principal debt. It was of no consequence what the parties called those payments. The laws applies them, where they belong, to the extinguishment of the debt. The finding of the circuit judge, as to the number of payments made, computations of interest, and all other questions of fact, are conclusive on us, provided no rule of law be violated in arriving at...