In re Thorson Bros.
Decision Date | 29 September 1913 |
Citation | 209 F. 961 |
Parties | In re THORSON BROS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Browne Browne & Smith, of Waupaca, Wis., for mortgagees.
H. J Severson, of Iola, Wis., for trustee.
GEIGER District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The facts are conceded. Prior to 1887, under the law of Wisconsin-- to which effect must be given as a rule of property-- chattel mortgages upon changeable stocks of merchandise, the mortgagor being in possession, at liberty to sell in the ordinary course of business, and to apply the proceeds to his own use, were fraudulent and void. Place v. Langworthy, 13 Wis. 629, 80 Am.Dec. 758; Steinart v. Deuster, 23 Wis. 136; Blakeslee v. Rossman, 43 Wis. 116; Single v. Phelps, 20 Wis. 398; Anderson v Patterson, 64 Wis. 557, 25 N.W. 541.
The last-cited case was decided in 1885. Chapter 241 of the Laws of 1887 (now section 2316b, Statutes 1898 of Wisconsin) provides:
This section doubtless was aimed to provide some regulative or remedial measures in respect of mortgages on merchandise stocks. It seems to be limited to recognizing the validity of such instruments if these conditions concur and are complied with: (1) That the mortgagee may remain in possession and sell the stock. (2) That the proceeds of sale be applied toward the extinction of the mortgage debt. (3) That the mortgage lien attach to after-acquired goods. (4) That the sales, accretions, or substitution of stocks, and the application of proceeds of sale be evidenced by filing verified statements as prescribed.
It may be noted that, prior to the enactment of this statute, the adjudications were unequivocally to the effect that mortgages, whereunder the mortgagor was at liberty to make sales and apply the proceeds to his own use, were 'fraudulent and void in law as against creditors; absolutely void as to them, beyond all aid from extrinsic facts. ' Blakeslee v. Rossman, supra. And in Anderson v. Patterson, it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hasbrouck v. LaFebre
......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.) ......
-
Adams Machinery, Inc., In re
...statement. Such a requirement was aimed to provide some regulative measure respecting mortgages on merchandise stock. In re Thorson Bros. (D.C.E.D.Wis.1913), 209 F. 961. The bank's contention the chattel mortgage cannot be a mortgage on stock of goods because the mortgage did not cover afte......
- Ex parte Thaw