Hawks v. Pritzlaff

• Decision Date: 10 November 1880
• Citation: 7 N.W. 303,51 Wis. 160
• Parties: HAWKS, Assignee, v. PRITZLAFF
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

7 N.W. 303

51 Wis. 160

HAWKS, Assignee, v. PRITZLAFF

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

November 10, 1880

Argued October 16, 1880

APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.

Action for a conversion of personal property. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

For the appellant there were briefs by Markhams & Smith, and oral argument by E. P. Smith.

For the respondent there was a brief by David S. Ordway, in behalf of Finches, Lynde & Miller, and oral argument by Mr. Ordway.

OPINION

The following opinion was filed November 10, 1880:

HARLOW S. ORTON, J.

The appellant predicates his right to the property in controversy upon a common-law assignment executed by one William A. Hogg to him, February 6, 1880, for the benefit of creditors. The respondent claims it by virtue of a bill of sale, absolute in its terms, executed to him by said Hogg, May 7, 1879, but which was intended to operate as a chattel mortgage to secure certain indebtedness of said Hogg to him, a considerable portion of which remains due and unpaid. The property remained in the possession of Hogg until the appellant took possession of it at the date of the assignment; and on the 14th day of February, 1880, the respondent took possession of it by virtue of said bill of sale. It is conceded that the bill of sale was never filed in the proper office, where, as a chattel mortgage, it should have been filed according to the statute; and whether it should have been so filed, for the purposes of this case need not be decided. It will be assumed that, if it was intended as a chattel mortgage, and the property remained in the possession of Hogg, the vendor or mortgagor, it comes within the statute requiring the filing of chattel mortgages.

The only question, therefore, is, whether this bill of sale, not having been filed, and considered as in effect a chattel mortgage, is valid as against the claim of the appellant as such assignee. There is considerable conflict of authorities upon this question, which has, no doubt, arisen to some extent from the difference in the statutes of various states relating to chattel mortgages, assignments and trusts. The learned counsel on both sides have, with great ability and research, reviewed most of these authorities, in order to educe the doctrine supported by the better authority. It would be but respectful to the learned counsel if we should undertake to follow this investigation, and pass upon the question as an original one in this court. But we deem it especially proper in this case to say that, when the precise point in controversy has been once decided by this court in a case where it has properly arisen, and such decision has not been overruled by this court, it will be treated as settled in future cases, except where, conceding the decision, this court is asked or deems it proper to review or overrule it. And even then it should not be disturbed after it has long stood at rest as an established principle of law, affecting the rights of property, which have for a long time been adjusted in accordance with it, without the most cogent reasons. Affirmatively and prima facie, at least, it will stand as the law of all cases, and require no authorities or decisions elsewhere to support it. One of the learned counsel did not even allude to any decision of this court of the question, and the other one alluded to it only incidentally as a make-weight in the preponderance of authorities.

As we view the effect of the decision in Estabrook v Messersmith, 18 Wis. 545, it is direct and positive authority upon this point. So viewing it, it...