Hughes v. Morris

• Decision Date: 23 May 1892
• Citation: Hughes v. Morris, 110 Mo. 306, 19 S.W. 481 (Mo. 1892)
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. MORRIS.

19 S.W. 481

110 Mo. 306

HUGHES et al. v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 23, 1892.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE — VALIDITY.

1. The body of a conveyance may be referred to in support of a certificate of acknowledgment thereof.

2. The law touching acknowledgments requires no more than a substantial compliance with its terms.

3. Where a chattel mortgage shows on its face that there are two grantors, composing a partnership, and the acknowledgment purports to be made by the firm, without identifying the person or persons who appeared before the officer, the instrument is not entitled to record, and is invalid as to attaching creditors.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Appeal from circuit court, Ray county; JAMES M. SANDUSKY, Judge.

Action by the banking house of J. S. Hughes & Co. against Morris for the recovery of specific personal property. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BARCLAY, J.:

The action is for the recovery of specific personal property. Defendant had judgment in the circuit court, and plaintiffs appealed in due form. The result depends on a chattel mortgage, mentioned in the opinion of the court, of which the material portions are the following, viz.: "Chattel mortgage. With power of sale. Know all men by these presents, that the undersigned, J. C. Mason and O. A. Barron, composing the firm of J. C. Mason & Co., Ray county, Mo., in consideration of the sum of sixty-two hundred dollars, to them paid by banking house of J. S. Hughes & Co., of Richmond, Mo., do sell, assign, transfer, and set over unto the said banking house of J. S. Hughes & Co., or its executors, administrators, and assigns, one hundred head of beef steers, * * * [here follows description of the property in dispute,] * * * in Ray county, Mo., upon condition that if they pay to the said banking house of J. S. Hughes & Co., or its executors, administrators, and assigns, their promissory note for sixty-two hundred dollars, bearing date Oct. 22d, 1887, and due four months after date, (with ten per cent. per annum interest from maturity till paid, if not paid when due,) then this conveyance shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. [Then follow stipulations that the debtors should retain possession of the property until default, etc., and provisions for notice and sale in event of nonpayment, etc.] In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hand and seal this 22d day of November, A. D. 1887. [Signed] J. C. MASON & CO. [Seal.] State of Missouri, County of Ray — ss.: Be it remembered that on this 22d day of Nov., A. D. 1887, before the undersigned, a recorder of deeds within and for the county of Ray, aforesaid, personally came J. C. Mason & Co., who is personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument of writing, as parties thereto, and acknowledged the same to be their act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at my office in Richmond, in said county, the day and year first above written. JOHN MILSTEAD, Recorder of Deeds. [Seal.]"

C. T. Garner & Son and J. E. Black, for appellants. J. L. Farris and J. W. Shotwell, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts.)

This is a controversy over the possession of certain personal property worth $5,444.90, as the court and jury that tried the issues on the circuit found. Defendant is the sheriff of Ray county, claiming possession and a special property in the chattels by virtue of a levy on them under a writ of attachment, duly issued in favor of the Ray County Savings Bank. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are mortgagees in a chattel mortgage (of the...