Byram v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 14 October 1863 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 531 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles Byram and another v. Henry Gordon and another |
Submitted on Briefs July 11, 1863
Error to Wayne Circuit. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
T. W Lockwood, for plaintiff in error:
2. Does it, in fact, even if reference to it is permissible as against strangers to it, show what sum of money was intended to be secured by the chattel mortgage.
3. As the chattel mortgage was not, in any respect, notice to the plaintiffs in error unless filed in the city clerk's office, so this agreement can not be treated as a part of it or used to make it valid as against plaintiffs in error, the agreement not having been filed with it: Sawyer v. Pennell, 19 Me. 167.
The chattel mortgage was not competent evidence of the title of Gordon & Martin to the lumber in question, as against plaintiffs in error, who were bona fide purchasers for value, and without actual notice of their claim, because of the uncertainty of its terms.
1. The amount intended to be secured by it was altogether uncertain, and the filing of the mortgage is not notice to plaintiffs in error of what the claim of Gordon & Martin against the property was. Neither does the agreement help it out in this respect, even if Byram & Carpenter had notice of it, which they had not: 19 Me. 167; Hinchman v. Town, 10 Mich. 514.
2. The time of performance of the condition of the mortgage is also altogether uncertain. It is $ 80 per week during the delivery of the logs; and when the logs are to be delivered does not appear either in the mortgage or in the contract.
3. The property covered by the chattel mortgage becomes also uncertain, by reason of the uncertainty in the condition as to time of payment, as the mortgage professes to cover the property which shall be in Hillson & Lee's yard and boom, during the continuance of the mortgage, and there is nothing to show how long this is to be.
Morrow & Davidson, for defendants in error.
Manning J.:
This is an action of trover, brought by defendants in error for a quantity of lumber. To make out their title to the lumber they gave in evidence a chattel mortgage from Lee & Hillson, and also an agreement between themselves and Lee & Hillson for a sale by them to Lee & Hillson of a quantity of logs. This evidence was excepted to, and the case is before us on the exceptions.
The agreement bears date 30th June, 1860. By it defendants in error were "to go on and deliver all the whitewood, oak maple, ash and black walnut logs, belonging to them and now (then) in Lake St....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deramus v. Deramus
...validity of the mortgage; the law, intervening in such circumstances, requires the payment to be made within a reasonable time. Byram v. Gordon, 11 Mich. 531; Jones on Mortgages (5th Ed.) § 87. There can be no difference in principle between the application of this rule to the mortgage of c......
-
In re Pilot Radio & Tube Corporation
...considered necessary to record a collateral agreement referred to in the mortgage. Hellyer v. Briggs, 55 Iowa, 185, 7 N. W. 490; Byram v. Gordon, 11 Mich. 531; Jones on Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (Bowers Ed.) vol. 1, §§ 79-96; Barnard v. Moore et al., 8 Allen (Mass.) 273; Wood ......
-
Cable Co. of Alabama v. Stewart
...the instrument, whether a mortgage or a conditional sale, less effective as notice to third persons dealing with the property. In Byram v. Gordon, 11 Mich. 531, it held that, where a chattel mortgage is given to secure the performance of a written agreement, the latter is no part of the mor......
-
Sickels v. Anderson
...Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Starnes, 38 Mich. 698. The question of reasonable time should have been left to the jury. Byram v. Gordon, 11 Mich. 531;Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342;Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162;S.C. 10 N.W.Rep. 183. The court should, if it directed a verdict at all, have instr......