Hasbrouck v. LaFebre

• Decision Date: 13 October 1915
• Docket Number: 802
• Parties: HASBROUCK v. LaFEBRE ET AL
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

152 P. 168

23 Wyo. 367

HASBROUCK v. LaFEBRE ET AL

No. 802

Supreme Court of Wyoming

October 13, 1915

ERROR to the District Court, Sheridan County; HON. C. H. PARMELEE Judge.

The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Affirmed.

Fred H Blume, for plaintiff in error.

The agreement made at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage was an agreement hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors, thus making the mortgage void. A chattel mortgage permitting the sale of the mortgaged goods without requiring the proceeds to be applied on the indebtedness is void on its face. (Claflin v. Foley, 22 W.Va. 434; Stattuck v. Knight, 25 W.Va. 590; Roden & Cave v. Norton &amp Co., 128 Ala. 129, 29 So. 637; Gilbert v Peppers, 65 W.Va. 793, 64 S.E. 361, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1181; Bump Fraudulent Con. (4th Ed.), Sec. 117; Vol. 5, Ency of Law, p. 994, and cases cited in note.) The mortgage was fraudulent in fact. (Bank v. Bates, 120 U.S. 561, 7 S.Ct. 679; Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N.Y. 459, 24 N.E. 853; First Nat. Bank v. North, 2 S.D. 480, 51 N.W. 96.) When the facts are undisputed, the question of intent does not enter into the validity of a mortgage. (In re Standard T. & E. Co., 157 F. 106 (Wis.); Dobyns v. Meyer, 95 Mo. 132, 8 S.W. 251, 6 A. S. R. 32; A. Blanton Grocery Co. v. Taylor (N. C.), 78 S.E. 276; Cowan v. Phillips, 119 N.C. 28, 25 S.E. 711; Holmes v. Marshall, 76 N.C. 264; Will T. Little Co. v. Burnham, 5 Okl. 283, 49 P. 66; McTeer v. Huntsman (Tenn.), 49 S.W. 57; Dunham v. Cramer, 63 N. J. Eq. 151, 51 A. 1011.) In Alabama such mortgages are held to be absolutely void. (Owens v. Hobbie, 82 Ala. 466, 3 So. 145; McDermott v. Eborn, 90 Ala. 260, 7 So. 751; O'Neil v. Brewing Co., 101 Ala. 388, 13 So. 576; Christian & Craft G. Co. v. Michael, 121 Ala. 84, 25 So. 571, 77 Am. St. Rep. 30; Roden v. Norton, 128 Ala. 129, 29 So. 637; Cross v. Berry, 132 Ala. 92, 31 So. 36; Gillespie v. McClesky, 160 Ala. 289, 49 So. 362; Albes v. Keith (Ala.), 44 So. 693.) Also in Colorado. (Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 721, 4 P. 966; Wilson v. Voight, 9 Colo. 614, 13 P. 726; Wile v. Butler, 4 Colo.App. 154, 34 P. 1111; Wilson v. Jones, 20 Colo.App. 317, 78 P. 622; Wellington v. Terry, 38 Colo. 285, 88 P. 467; Dodge v. Norlin, 133 F. 363, 66 C. C. A. 425 (Colo.) And Connecticut. (Gaylor v. Harding, 37 Conn. 516 (Bump F. Convey., p. 127.) Florida: (Eckman v. Munnedyn, 32 Fla. 367, 13 So. 922.) Indiana; (New v. Sailors, 114 Ind. 407, 16 N.E. 609; Stout v. Price, 24 Ind.App. 360, 55 N.E. 964; Wilson v. Sullivan, 58 N.H. 200.) Idaho; (Lewiston Nat. Bank v. Martin, 2 Idaho, 734, 23 P. 920; Ryan v. Rogers, 14 Idaho 309, 94 P. 427.) Illinois; (Huschle v. Morris, 131 Ill. 587, 23 N.E. 643; Simmons v. Jenkins, 76 Ill. 479; Barrett v. Fergus, 51 Ill. 352, 99 A. D. 547; Greenebaum v. Wheeler, 90 Ill. 296.) Kansas; (Standard Imp. Co. v. Schultz, 45 Kan. 52, 25 P. 625; Brown v. Barber, 47 Kan. 527, 28 P. 184; Humphrey v. Mayfield, 63 Kan. 208, 65 P. 234.) Minnesota; (Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 507, 50 N.W. 696; Citizens State Bank of Tracey v. Brown, 110 Minn. 276, 124 N.W. 990; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Butchard, 67 Minn. 191, 69 N.W. 809, 64 Am. St. Rep. 408.) Missouri; (Hardware v. Riddle, 84 Mo.App. 275 (paying other debts); Bank v. Lumber Co., 134 Mo. 432, 34 S.W. 869; Gee v. Drug Co., 105 Mo.App. 27, 78 S.W. 288; Bank v. Anderson, 100 Mo.App. 567, 75 S.W. 189; Guthrel v. Guthrel (Mo. App.), 132 S.W. 274; Embree v. Roney, 152 Mo.App. 257, 133 S.W. 83; Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Supply Co., 140 Mo. 538, 50 S.W. 912; McDonald v. Hoover, 142 Mo. 484, 44 S.W. 334.) Montana; (Rocheleau v. Boyle, 11 Mont. 469, 28 P. 873; Stevens v. Curran, 28 Mont. 366, 72 P. 753.) Maryland; (Edelhoff v. Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 595, 39 A. 314.) Mississippi; (Anderson v. Partee, 79 Miss. 80, 29 So. 788; First Nat. Bank v. Coperton, 74 Miss. 857, 22 So. 60, 60 A. S. R. 542; W. B. Belknapp & Co. v. Lyell (Miss.), 42 So. 799; Newton &c. Co. v. Carr (Miss.), 52 So. 353.) Nebraska; (Brinker v. Ashenfelter, 1 Neb. (Unoff.) 793, 95 N.W. 1124; Tallon v. Ellison, 3 Neb. 63, 75; Buckstaff Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Snyder, 54 Neb. 538, 74 N.W. 863; Sherwin v. Gaghagen, 39 Neb. 238, 57 N.W. 1005; Paxton v. Smith, 41 Neb. 56, 59 N.W. 690.) Nevada; (Lutz v. Kinney, 24 Neb. 38, 49 P. 453, 50 P. 1031.) New Hampshire; (Putnam v. Osgood, 51 N.H. 192, 52 N.H. 148; Locke v. New England B. Co. 73 N.H. 492, 63 A. 178.) New York; (Skilton v. Covington, 185 N.Y. 80, 77 N.E. 790, 113 A. S. R. 885; Zartman v. Bank, 189 N.Y. 267, 82 N.E. 127, 12 L. R. A. 1083 (N. S.); Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N.Y. 376, 26 N.E. 951, 21 A. S. R. 678; Hengen v. Hachemeister, 114 N.Y. 566, 21 N.E. 1046, 5 L. R. A. 137; Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168, 1 N.E. 605; Hardt v. Deitch, 48 N.Y.S. 564; Southard v. Banner, 72 N.Y. 424; Newman v. Peyser, 141 N.Y.S. 422; Robson v. Daily, 130 N.Y.S. 1036; Briggs v. Gelm, 106 N.Y.S. 693; In re Davis, 155 F. 671; Zartman v. Bank, 96 N.Y.S. 633.) North Carolina; (A. Blanton Grocery Co. v. Taylor (N. C.), 78 S.E. 276; Cowan v. Phillips, 119 N.C. 28, 25 S.E. 711; Holmes v. Marshall, 76 N.C. 264; Edwards v. Supply Co., 150 N.C. 172, 63 S.E. 742.) North Dakota; (Bergman v. Jones, 10 N.D. 520, 88 N.W. 284, 88 A. S. R. 739; Madson v. Rutten, 16 N.D. 281, 113 N.W. 872, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 554.) Ohio: (Collins v. Myers, 16 Ohio 547; Freman v. Rawson, 5 Ohio St. 1; Enck v. Gerding, 67 O. S. 245, 65 N.E. 880.) Oklahoma; (Will T. Little v. Burham, 5 Okl. 283, 49 P. 66.) Oregon; (Bremer v. Fleckenstein, 9 Or. 266; Greig v. Mueller (Or.), 133 P. 94; Orton v. Orton, 7 Or. 478, 33 A. R. 717.) Tennessee; (Tennessee Nat. Bank v. Ebert, 9 Heisk. 153; McTeer v. Huntsman, 49 S.W. 57; Robinson v. Baugh, 61 S.W. 98; Moore v. Wood, 61 S.W. 1063.) Texas; (Wilbur v. Kray, 73 Tex. 533, 11 S.W. 540; Nat. Bank v. Lovenberg, 63 Tex. 645.) Utah; (McKibbin v. Brigham, 18 Utah 78, 55 P. 66; Nelden J. D. Co. v. Bank (Utah), 74 P. 195.) West Virginia; (Claffin v. Foley, 22 W.Va. 434; Garden v. Bodwing, 9 W.Va. 121; Kuhn v. Mack, 4 W.Va. 186; Conaway v. Stealy, 44 W.Va. 163, 28 S.E. 793; Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U.S. 266, 11 S.Ct. 563, 35 L.Ed. 171; Gilbert v. Peppers, 65 W.Va. 355, 64 S.E. 361, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1181; Ritchie Co. Bank v. McFarland, 183 F. 715, 106 C. C. A. 153, 174 F. 859 (W. Va.) Virginia; (Hughes v. Effinger & Co. v. Eppling, 93 Va. 424, 25 S.E. 105; Gray v. Atlantic T. & Co., 113 Va. 580, 75 S.E. 226.) Wisconsin; (Anderson v. Patterson, 64 Wis. 557, 25 N.W. 541; Bank of Kanbauna v. Joannes, 98 Wis. 321, 73 N.W. 997; Charles Baumbach Co. v. Hobkirk, 104 Wis. 488, 80 N.W. 740; Durr v. Landau, 108 Wis. 401, 84 N.W. 437; Franzke v. Hitchson, 105 Wis. 1, 80 N.W. 931; In re Thorsen, 209 F. 961 (Wis.); Knapp v. Trust Co., 162 F. 672, 89 C. C. A. 467, 216 U.S. 545, 30 S.Ct. 412; In re Standard T. & E. Co., 157 F. 106; Batts v. Peacock, 23 Wis. 359; Place v. Langworthy, 13 Wis. 629.) The Wyoming Legislature evidently intended to have such mortgages deemed fraudulent. (Comp. Stats. 3734; Sec. 13, Chap. 7, Laws 1890-91.) Unless it is expressly otherwise stated in the mortgage, all proceeds must be paid to the mortgagee. If not void, the mortgage should have been held to have been paid in full. The sum of $ 8,000 was realized on the sale of mortgaged goods, which should have been applied as far as necessary to discharge the mortgage debt. The mortgagee consented that it need not be applied. A creditor has a right to extend credit upon the presumption that the law will be complied with. A mortgagee should not be permitted to say that he did not intend to violate the law. (Anderson v. Patterson, 64 Wis. 557, 25 N.W. 541.) This court has held that where the chattel mortgage law is not complied with, it is void as to creditors. (Bank v. Woodworth, 7 Wyo. 20, 49 P. 406.) The doctrine of constructive payments should be applied. (Newton Oil Co. v. Carr (Miss.), 52 So. 353; Stout v. Price, 24 Ind.App. 360, 55 N.E. 964, 56 N.E. 857; Skilton v. Codington, 185 N.Y. 80, 77 N.E. 790, 113 Am. St. Rep. 793; Conkling v. Shelly, 28 N.Y. 360, 84 Am. Dec. 348; Ellsworth v. Phelps, 30 Hun, 646; In re Thorsen Bros., 209 F. 961.) A statutory assignee may attack such mortgages. (Secs. 3367-71-76-77-82-72--91-94, Comp. Stats.) The assignee represents the creditors only. (Patterson v. Lee Clark Anderson Co., 7 Wyo. 406, 52 P. 1085; Bump. Fraud. Conv. (4th Ed.), Sec. 326; Haines v. Tiffany, 25 Ohio St. 549; Moore v. Williamson, 44 N. J. Eq. 496, 1 L. R. A. 336, 15 A. 587; Pillsbury v. Kingon, 38 N. J. Eq. 287; Receiver v. Spielman, 50 N. J. Eq. 120, 24 A. 571; Wumpheimer v. Perine (N. J.), 47 A. 769, 50 A. 356; Grant v. Crowell, 42 N. J. Eq. 524, 9 A. 201; Schaller v. Wright, 70 Ia. 667, 28 N.W. 460; Estbrook v. Messersmith, 18 Wis. 545; Flower v. Cornish, 25 Minn. 473; Chapin v. Jenkins, 50 Kan. 385, 31 P. 1084; Kilbourne v. Keller, 29 O. S. 264; Waters v. Dashiel, 1 Md. 455; Teams v. Bullitt, 35 Pa. St. 308; Freeland v. Freeland, 102 Mass. 475; Southard v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 424; Walton v. Eby, 53 Kan. 257, 36 P. 257; Seibert v. Milligan, 110 Ind. 106, 10 N.E. 929; Cooper v. Perdue, 114 Ind. 207, 16 N.E. 141; Grant v. Crowell, 42 N. J. Eq. 524, 9 A. 201.) Our statute is apparently taken from Indiana and the decisions of that state sustain the right of an assignee to recover as against such mortgages. (Cooper v. Perdue, 114 Ind. 207, 16 N.E. 140; Sealres v. Little, 153 Ind. 432, 55 N.E. 93. See also Bank v. Solyer, 4 Okl. 408, 50 P. 76; Taylor v. Lauer, 127 N.C. 157, 37 S.E. 197; Walton v. Inv. Co., 131 S.W. 275, 140 Ky. 472; Grand Ave. Bank v. Trust Co., 135 Mo.App. 366, 115 S.W. 1071; Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn. 507, 50 N.W. 696; Kellogg v. Shelly, 69 Minn. 124, 71 N.W. 924; In re St. Paul &c. Co., 94 N.W. 218; In re Standard T. & E. Co., 157 F. 106.) In construing the Montana and California...