Chamberlin v. Peltz

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BAKEWELL
• Citation: Chamberlin v. Peltz, 1 Mo.App. 183 (Mo. App. 1876)
• Decision Date: 14 February 1876
• Parties: CHARLES F. CHAMBERLIN et al., Appellants, v. SAMUEL PELTZ, Assignee of WATSON & ALLEN, Respondent.

1 Mo.App. 183

CHARLES F. CHAMBERLIN et al., Appellants,

v.SAMUEL PELTZ, Assignee of WATSON & ALLEN, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 14, 1876.

Plaintiffs exchanged certain personal property for land, with the understanding that, for the difference in value between the personalty and the land, they were to receive notes, secured by chattel mortgage upon the personalty exchanged. The value of the land and of the personalty was agreed upon, notes were executed for the difference and secured upon the chattels, and a deed of the land, with warranty, executed and delivered to plaintiffs. It afterwards appeared that taxes to a considerable amount were a lien on the lands at the time of the transfer. Held, that plaintiffs, as against creditors of the persons giving the chattel mortgage, were not entitled to an equitable lien upon the goods for the difference between the amount of the notes and the sum for which it is alleged they should have been made had the fact of the unpaid taxes been known to plaintiffs when the transaction was consummated.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

Hallum & O'Sullivan, for appellant, cited: McKnight v. Bright, 2 Mo. 110; Crump v. Mosley, 8 Mo. 408; Bledsoe v. Gaines, 30 Mo. 448; Marsh v. Turner, 4 Mo. 253; Adams v. Buchanan, 49 Mo. 64; Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 Johns. 437; Knowles v. Lord, 4 Whart. (Penn.) 500; Wormly v. Lowry, 1 How. Tem. 468; Ingham v. Vaden, 3 How. Tem. 51; Harris v. Horner, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) Eq. 455; Donaldson v. Bank of Cape Fear, 1 Dev. (N. C.) Eq. 103; 4 Hen. & M. 113; Tomkins v. Mitchel, 2 Rand. (Va.) 428.

Bereman & Smith, for respondents, cited: White & Tudor Ld. Cas. (3d Am. ed.), top page 375; Lupin v. Marie, 6 Wend. 99; James v. Bird's Admr., 8 Leigh (Va.), 510; Beaw v. Blanton et al., 3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 51.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants demur to the petition of plaintiff herein, and for ground of demurrer allege that the petition does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below gave final judgment for defendant on the demurrer, and plaintiffs, after motion for new trial overruled, having duly saved exceptions, bring the cause here by appeal, and for error assign the action of the court below in sustaining the demurrer to their petition.

The petition sets forth that plaintiffs, in May, 1873, were in business as job printers and stationers in St. Louis, having on hand a stock valued at $30,877; that said stock was then sold to Watson & Allen for that sum, they to give in part payment certain real estate valued at $22,200, and to pay the balance of $8,677 by the notes of said Watson & Allen, secured by chattel mortgage upon the stock sold; that said Watson & Allen executed and delivered to plaintiffs deeds for the real estate, with warranty against taxes, and also stated to plaintiffs that they had actually paid all taxes then assessed against said land, and also delivered to plaintiffs their notes at sixty and ninety days for the balance of $8,677, secured by chattel mortgage on the property sold, according to agreement; that, shortly after the maturity of the last of said notes, Watson & Allen, being insolvent, made an assignment of their property, consisting principally of that thus bought of plaintiffs, to defendant, Peltz, for the benefit of their creditors; that, after said assignment was made, plaintiffs discovered that there were, at the time of their sale and delivery of the goods in question to Watson & Allen, about $1,025 taxes assessed against, and an unpaid lien against, the real estate which they had received as aforesaid from said Watson & Allen, in part payment of these goods, which taxes they, ...