Close v. Hodges

• Decision Date: 25 July 1890
• Citation: 46 N.W. 335,44 Minn. 204
• Parties: CLOSE ET AL. v HODGES ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 204

46 N.W. 335

CLOSE ET AL.vHODGES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. A chattel mortgage upon growing crops held valid, and the record thereof constructive notice to the purchaser of the grain when harvested.

2. After condition broken, the mortgagee, unless it is otherwise stipulated, becomes immediately vested with the right of possession of the mortgaged property, and the purchaser in possession will be liable as for a conversion, upon his refusal to deliver the same on demand.

3. This liability is not affected by the fact that the mortgage covered additional property which did not come into the hands of the purchaser, and has not been applied on the mortgage debt, or recovered by the mortgagee.

4. A pre-existing debt is sufficient consideration for a chattel mortgage as between the parties and their assigns.

5. A mortgage and note, made directly to a party who is the agent of the equitable owner of the debt thereby secured, may be enforced in the name of such agent.

Appeal from district court, Pipestone county; PERKINS, Judge.

Rice Bros., for appellants.

F. L. Janes, for respondents.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiffs seek to recover the value of certain grain, wheat, and flax, described in the complaint, and claimed by them, and which they allege has been wrongfully converted by the defendants. On the 31st day of May, 1888, one H. G. Logan executed a chattel mortgage to Close Bros. & Co., a firm including these plaintiffs, and to whose rights and property they have succeeded, upon all the crops growing on the N. E. 1/4-17-106-44, then in the possession of the mortgagor, in the town of Burke, in Pipestone county, in this state, consisting of “57 acres of wheat, 15 acres of oats, 5 acres of corn, and 8 acres of flax,” and sown and raised by him thereon. The mortgagor resided on and cultivated the land that year. The mortgage was duly filed in the same town on the 4th day of June, 1888, and the grain was then owned by him. The mortgage was given to secure a note payable to Close Bros. & Co. or order for the sum of $255.77, and due December 1, 1888. Early in October the same year, the mortgagor, having threshed the grain, sold and delivered to the defendants 77 bushels of flax and 261 bushels of wheat, amounting in value to more than the amount then due upon the mortgage. The plaintiffs duly demanded the grain of the defendants before suit brought, and they refused to deliver or pay for it. The plaintiff was permitted to recover the amount due on the mortgage. The oats were also threshed by the mortgagor, but it does not appear what became of them, or the corn included in the mortgage. The defendants purchased the wheat and flax at their warehouse, four miles distant from the mortgagor's residence, but had no actual notice of plaintiffs' mortgage.

1. The description in the mortgage was sufficient, and the plaintiffs had constructive notice thereof derived from the record, of which they were bound to take notice. They therefore bought the grain of the mortgagor subject to the mortgage. Miller v. Harvesting Machine Co., 35 Minn. 401,29 N. W. Rep. 52. The description therein was sufficient to notify them of the lien thereof upon the grain raised by Logan on the land described, and the identity of the property was not lost by harvesting, threshing, and garnering, but the lien of the mortgage continued. This results from the fact that the mortgage was valid, and...