Brown v. Wilkes
Decision Date | 15 May 1922 |
Docket Number | 361 |
Citation | 241 S.W. 383,153 Ark. 545 |
Parties | BROWN v. WILKES |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed. Motion denied.
Hughes & Hughes, for appellants.
The evidence was not sufficient to support the judgment.
If the instrument in question was a mortgage, the personal property was not subject to execution. 94 Ark. 296.
The instrument in question was an assignment for the benefit of creditors. 52 Ark. 43.
The court erred in adjudging that appellees were entitled to satisfaction out of the trust property in priority to other creditors. C. & M. Dig., § 489. The policy of the statute is to assure equality to all creditors. 83 Ark. 182; 133 Ark. 554.
Bogle & Sharp, for appellees.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of the court.
In any action for the recovery of specific personal property, the jury must assess its value, and also the damages for the taking and detention of same. C. & M. Dig., sec. 8654; 104 Ark. 375.
In the absence of a demand for a separate valuation before the verdict or of objection to the verdict, the presumption is that the right is waived. 53 Ark. 411; 26 Kan. 320; 49 Ala 134.
Objections to deviations from the strict line of procedure which do not vitiate the judgment must be made in apt time. 51 Ark. 126; 51 Ark. 130; 1 Thompson's Trials, sec. 113.
The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right, unless the record of the court will make it appear affirmatively that it is erroneous. 124 Ark. 388; 44 Ark 744; 94 Ark. 115.
Replevin cannot be maintained against an officer who has the custody and possession of property under a valid execution. 4 Ark 525; 8 Ark. 563; 11 Ark. 658; 94 Ark. 384.
Replevin cannot be successfully maintained where the title rests on a void instrument. 10 Ark. 53; 19 Ark. 659; 26 Ark. 33; 69 Ark. 11.
Mathis & Trice, for appellees.
A mortgage is the conveyance of an estate or a pledge of property as security for the payment of money or the performance of some act, and conditioned to become void upon such payment or performance. An assignment is an absolute conveyance of title for the purpose of raising funds to pay the debts of the grantor. 2 Ruling Case Law, p. 662.
Where an instrument clearly indicates on its face that it is executed, not to secure bona fide creditors, but to enable the debtor to carry on his business under cover of another's name, the instrument is void. 152 U.S. 527. No general rule can be established by which conveyances can certainly be adjudged to be fraudulent or not. 22 Ark. 184; 53 N.Y.S. 513; 58 N.E. 773; 49 N.Y.S. 111.
Certain creditors of J. A. Burt recovered separate judgments against him in the circuit court of Woodruff County and caused executions to be issued on the judgments and delivered to appellee, as sheriff of the county, who levied the writs on a lot of chattels as the property of Burt.
Appellants, R. G. Brown and R. T. H. Chambers, instituted the present action against the sheriff to recover possession of the property seized under execution, and they assert title to the property under a deed executed to them by Burt.
The property described in the deed executed by Burt to appellants is mentioned as road construction equipment, and consists of sixty-eight horses and mules, a lot of wagons, tractors, scrapers, shovels, crane, truck, graders, steam-rollers, and other equipment and tools used in road construction work. The names of Burt's creditors are mentioned in the deed, and the amount of the indebtedness, aggregating about $ 70,000, and there is a general provision in the deed that if there are found to be other creditors who have been omitted they shall be treated as beneficiaries under the deed.
Appellants are mentioned in the deed as trustees, and the instrument is designated by name as a mortgage. The deed contains the following clauses:
There is a clause near the end of the deed which provides, in substance, that at the expiration of fourteen months the trustees shall proceed to terminate the trust and sell all of the remainder of the property not otherwise disposed of, and that if, after paying all of the debts, there be a surplus, it shall be returned to "the mortgagor, his executors, administrators or assigns."
The trial of the cause resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee.
The bill of exceptions recites that the testimony adduced at the trial was confined to the record evidence of the judgments against Burt, the writs issued thereunder, and evidence of the value of the property seized by the sheriff, and the aforesaid deed under which appellants claim title.
The only question presented for our decision is, whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appellants were the plaintiffs below, and the burden was upon them to establish their right to recover possession of the property, and they rely solely upon the instrument executed to them by Burt, which is set forth in the bill of exceptions. The question of sufficiency of the evidence calls for an interpretation of the instrument.
While the language of the instrument characterizes it as a mortgage, it is, in fact, not that kind of an instrument, for it does not contain a defeasance clause, which is one of the essentials of a mortgage. The instrument is, in effect, a conveyance to trustees for the payment of a debt to creditors. It is an absolute appropriation...
To continue reading
Request your trial