Kohl v. Lynn
| Decision Date | 21 June 1876 |
| Citation | 34 Mich. 360 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hermann Kohl v. James S. Lynn |
Heard June 16, 1876
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
O. T Tuthill, for plaintiff in error.
May Powers & Gates, for defendant in error.
Lynn, who had a chattel mortgage against certain horses and a wagon (with other property), executed to him by one Brown, replevied them from Kohl, who had bought them on credit from Brown, without notice of Lynn's mortgages, which was not properly recorded.
Upon the trial in the court below, the parties both took somewhat extreme grounds, Kohl insisting as a purchaser in good faith that Lynn's mortgage was void for want of record, and Lynn claiming that his title had become absolute and beyond redemption.
The statute which makes a mortgage of chattels, which has not been recorded, void against "subsequent purchasers or mortgagees in good faith," (2 C L., § 4706), uses those terms in the sense which has always been attached to them by judicial decisions. The only object of the law is to protect those who have acquired rights under circumstances which would render them liable to be defrauded unless protected against instruments of which they knew nothing when they obtained their rights. It has always been held that a purchaser who had paid nothing could not be thus defrauded, and that no one could be protected as a bona fide purchaser except to the extent of his payments made before he received such notice as should have prevented him from making further payments. This doctrine has been too uniformly recognized to require discussion or citation of authorities.
As Kohl had made no payments at all before the property was replevied from him, he was not a bona fide purchaser, and his rights are subject to the mortgage.
But, on the other hand, it is also well settled in this state that the title of a mortgagee of chattels does not become absolute until the mortgagee has done some act equivalent to a foreclosure, which must usually at any rate be by a sale; and any moneys realized from such a sale must be treated as moneys collected to apply on the security, and not as the absolute property of the mortgagee, beyond the extent of his lawful claim as a creditor.--See Lucking v. Wesson 25 Mich. 443; Baxter v. Spencer, 33 Mich. 325; Cary v. Hewitt, 26 Mich. 228; Flanders v. Chamberlain, 24 Mich. 305;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro-Plan, Inc. v. Kotcher-Turner, Inc.
...404;Warner v. Whittaker, 6 Mich. 133,75 Am.Dec. 65;Blanchard v. Tyler, 12 Mich. 339, 86 Am.Dec. 57;Stone v. Welling, 14 Mich. 514;Kohl v. Lynn, 34 Mich. 360;Webster v. Bailey, 40 Mich. 641;McGraw v. Solomon, 83 Mich. 442, 47 N.W. 345;Zucker v. Karpeles, 88 Mich. 413, 50 N.W. 373;Automobile ......
-
Kastner v. Andrews
... ... 183; Sanford v. Duluth & D. Elev. Co. 2 ... N.D. 6; Kellogg v. Olson, 34 Minn. 103, 24 N.W. 364; ... Caldwell v. Pray, 41 Mich. 307; Kohl v ... Lynn, 34 Mich. 360; Jones, Chat. Mortg. P 455 ... Charles ... L. Crum, William Langer and S. L. Nuchols, for ... ...
-
Brink v. Freoff
...177, and that title did not pass to the mortgagee on breach of condition until after foreclosure, Lucking v. Wesson, 25 Mich. 443; Kohl v. Lynn, 34 Mich. 360; Caruthers Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270; taking another's property wrongfully and disposing of it in disregard of his rights, even if only ......
- Knollin v. Jones