Fowler v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 01 January 1880 |
| Parties | FOWLER & MORELAND, PARTNERS, ETC., v. HUNT. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Crawford circuit court.W. H. Evans and Stoneman & Chapin, for respondents.
Thomas & Fuller and M. M. & D. Webster, for appellant.
The chattel mortgage on which the plaintiffs predicate their right to the property, the value of which they seek to recover in this action, was clearly void for uncertainty of description. The language of description is as follows: “The entire stock in trade and fixtures of the said William Wetpel, consisting of clocks, watches, chains, show cases, jewelry and all goods included in his stock, tools and material, excepting one safe, one regulator, one astronomical clock, two musical clocks, and stock in trade to the amount of two hundred dollars.”
This exception leaves in the mortgagor a proportionate interest in each article mortgaged, as $200 is to the whole value of the property, uncertain and unsevered, and which is unseverable and incommutable, except by some future act of the parties; or the mortgage leaves a right of future selection of any of the property to the mortgagor of the value of $200, the residue of which can be ascertained only by such selection, and in either view such uncertainty of description renders the mortgage void.
“In order to transfer the right of property in goods or chattels, the chattel intended to be conveyed must be ascertained and identified at the time of the execution of the instrument.” Herman on Chat. Mortg. § 38.
Where a mortgage is of property, and there is a larger quantity in the possession of the mortgagor than is specified in the description, and no particular description of the article, otherwise than by their general class or number, nor any selection or delivery of the articles, nor any specification as to which are intended, out of a large lot of articles then on hand, such mortgage will be ineffectual to pass any title to any particular property, or to any interest in the property on hand. Herman on Chattel Mortgage, § 42; Crosswell v. Allis, 25 Conn. 311; Blakeley v. Patrick, 67 N. C. 40. So, when the exception to the things granted is, “such articles as are by law exempt from levy and sale under execution,” and the exemption would apply as well to any of the articles named, the mortgage is void for uncertainty.
In such case the court, in Newell v. Warner, 44 Barb. 263, very properly said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walter A. Wood M. & R. M. Co. v. Minneapolis & N. E. Co.
...21 Neb. 195; Dodds v. Neel, 41 Ark. 70; Krone v. Phelps, 43 Ark. 350; Watson v. Pugh, 51 Ark. 218; Kelly v. Reid, 57 Miss. 89; Fowler v. Hunt, 48 Wis. 345; Blakely v. Patrick, 67 N.C. 40; Stonebraker Ford, 81 Mo. 532; Richardson v. Alpena Lumber Co., 40 Mich. 203; Cass v. Gunnison, 58 Mich.......
-
Stonebraker v. Ford
...Lumber Co., 40 Mich. 203; Crosswell v. Allis, 25 Conn. 301; Bullock v. Williams, 16 Pick (Mass.) 33; Kelley v. Reid, 57 Miss.; Fowler v. Hunt, 48 Wis. 345; Jones Chat. Mort., § 56; Herman Chat. Mort., §§ 38, 42. 3d. Because the evidence of defendants in error shows that the mortgage was in ......
-
Molle v. Kewaskum Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...(after stating the facts as above). The decision of this case by the circuit court is sought to be supported by citation of Fowler v. Hunt, 48 Wis. 345, 4 N. W. 481, where was presented a chattel mortgage describing “the entire stock in trade and fixtures of the said * * * consisting of clo......
-
King v. Hargadine-McKittrick Dry-Goods Co.
...103; 2 Heisk. 411; 5 Id. 686; Ib. 736. If the deed be construed as passing all of the property not exempt, then it is void for uncertainty. 4 N.W. 481; 25 Conn. 311; 8 Kas. 574; 20 674; 41 Ark. 70; 41 Id. 495. 3. Even if the exemptions were valid, the deed was a partial assignment with refe......