Binnian v. Baker

• Decision Date: 07 March 1893
• Citation: 6 Wash. 50,32 P. 1008
• Parties: BINNIAN v. BAKER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

32 P. 1008

6 Wash. 50

BINNIAN v. BAKER.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 7, 1893

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Henry Binnian against A. J. Baker for conversion by defendant of property on which plaintiff had a mortgage. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Battle & Shipley and White & Munday, for appellant.

John Fairfield and Daniel T. Cross, for respondent.

DUNBAR C.J.

On August 23, 1890, one Taylor borrowed of Henry Binnian respondent herein, the sum of $335, for which he gave his promissory note, and to secure the payment of said sum executed and delivered to respondent a chattel mortgage on a certain lot of horses. Subsequently he mortgaged the same horses to A. J. Baker, appellant herein. Baker sold the horses in accordance with the terms of his mortgage, and bought them in at the sale. Binnian then brought his action against Baker to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the alleged taking and converting to his own use by Baker of the property above mentioned. He did not allege the value of the horses, and did not allege demand for their possession, or that he was entitled to their possession, and he set forth the mortgage in extenso, under the provisions of which he was authorized to sell the property upon the violation by the mortgagor of any of the conditions of the contract, alleging the wrongful taking of the property by Baker, and that he wrongfully sold the same, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $500. The answer was a general denial. Upon the trial the appellant objected to the introduction of any testimony, on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The objection was overruled. Trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for respondent for the sum of $426. Judgment followed, and appellant appeals to this court, alleging many errors, but it will only be necessary to notice the first viz. that the court erred in not sustaining the objection to the admission of testimony on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient.

This court held, in Silsby v. Aldridge, 1 Wash. St. 117 23 P. 836, that a chattel mortgage under the statutes of this state does not convey to the holders of the mortgage any title to the property in question. The mortgage, then, being only a security, the mortgagee has no right in the property other than his right to...