Lion Shoe Co. v. Price
| Decision Date | 07 August 1931 |
| Citation | 155 A. 775 |
| Parties | LION SHOE CO. et al. v. PRICE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
Chattel mortgages. A statement of consideration annexed to a chattel mortgage must set forth the true and an actual consideration, and a statement setting forth notes or checks is not sufficient statement of consideration.
Syllabus by the Court.
Chattel mortgages. The statement of consideration must be complete, and where the statement is only partial the mortgage is void for the entire amount. Syllabus by the Court.
Chattel mortgages. Section 4 of the Chattel Mortgage Act (1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 403) applies as well to creditors who become such before the recording of a mortgage defective thereunder as well as to prior creditors.
Syllabus by the Court.
Chattel mortgages. The mortgagee who takes possession and sells property under a mortgage, void by section 4 of the Chattel Mortgage Act (1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 463), held liable to account to creditors for proceeds of sale.
Suit by the Lion Shoe Company and others against Morris Price and another.
Decree for complainants.
Kiminel & Kimmel, of Paterson, for complainants.
William N. Gurtman, of Passaic, for defendants.
LEWIS, Vice Chancellor.
This is a suit where judgment creditors of defendant Price compel the defendant Golden to account for the proceeds of the sale under a chattel mortgage on property of defendant Price. In 1928, Price executed a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage to Golden to secure the sum of $3,000. Appended thereto was an affidavit purporting to set forth the consideration. The document was recorded as a chattel mortgage, and subsequently complainants sold goods to Price. Defendant Golden subsequently sold the goods under the chattel mortgage for the sum of $3,400. After the sale, complainants reduced their claims for judgments. It is contended on behalf of complainants that the affidavit appended to the mortgage was defective under the statute, and that the mortgage was accordingly void as against them, and that defendant Golden should be directed to account to them out of the $3,400 for the amount of their judgments. In my opinion, they have sustained this contention.
The Chattel Mortgage Act (section 4 [1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 463]) provides, so far as relative here, that every mortgage not accompanied by immediate delivery "shall be absolutely void as against the creditors of the mortgagor * * * unless the mortgage, having annexed thereto an affidavit * * * stating the consideration of said mortgage * * * be recorded." Here there was a statement annexed purporting to set forth the true consideration for the $3,000, and enumerating certain notes and checks aggregating more than one-half of the principal sum and two items set forth as cash loans. The dates and names of the makers of these checks and notes are set forth, but there is no statement as to what the consideration was for them. It is settled by the decisions that the mere setting up of a note or check is not sufficient compliance with the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jarecki v. Manville Bakery
...Inc., 121 N.J.Eq. 599, 191 A. 851 (E. & A. 1937). Moreover the consideration must be completely revealed. Lion Shoe Co. v. Price, 108 N.J.Eq. 553, 155 A. 775 (Ch.1931); Atzingen v. Ottolino, 124 N.J.Eq. 510, 2 A.2d 652 The circumstances constituting the transaction in the present case are i......
-
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Lieberman
...1011; Wilkinson, Caddis & Company v. Bohlen, 88 N.J.L. 680, 97 A. 279; Hunt v. Ludwig, 94 N.J.Eq. 158, 118 A. 839; Lion Shoe Co. et al. v. Price, 108 N.J.Eq. 553, 155 A. 775; Hornich v. Hornich-Towers Co. Inc., 114 N.J.Eq. 473, 168 A. 866; Warner v. Cranford Printing & Publishing Co., 116 N......
-
In re AJ Doan & Son
...Co. v. Second Nat., etc., Co., 111 N.J.Eq. 535, 162 A. 917; Arnesto Paint Co. v. Brush, 117 N.J.Eq. 368, 175 A. 902; Lion Shoe Co. v. Price, 108 N.J.Eq. 553, 155 A. 775; Atzingen v. Ottolino et al., 124 N.J.Eq. 510, 2 A.2d 652; Adelman et al. v. Ulshofer, 123 N.J.L. 417, 8 A.2d The Referee ......
-
Sickinger v. Zimel
...Trading Corp., 119 N.J.Eq. 366, 182 A. 824 (Ch. 1936), affirmed 120 N.J.Eq. 214, 184 A. 521 (E. & A. 1936), and Lion Shoe Co. v. Price, 108 N.J.Eq. 553, 155 A. 775 (Ch. 1931), said: 'It is held that the true consideration must be set forth not merely particularly but completely, and that th......