Lodge v. Samuels
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Parties | WM. E. LODGE, Plaintiff in Error, v. GEORGE W. SAMUELS, EXECUTOR OF E. M. SAMUELS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
S. N. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.
S. N. Holliday, for defendant in error, cited Billingsley v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547.
This was an action in the nature of trover and conversion, brought originally against E. M. Samuels for the conversion of two hundred and eighty-five dozen broom-corn brooms. E. M. Samuels died, and the suit was revived against the defendant as his executor.
The plaintiff claimed the brooms by virtue of a chattel mortgage made by George S. Fuller and David Graham, residents of Illinois, to Levander W. Pattison, who assigned the mortgage to plaintiffs. The case shows that Fuller and Graham were in the business of manufacturing and selling brooms at Monticello in Illinois, and after the making of the mortgage, through an agent, shipped the brooms in question to St. Louis for sale, and they were sold to E. M. Samuels by their agent. The deed of mortgage purports to be acknowledged and recorded in Illinois, under the statutes of that State; but whether properly acknowledged and recorded it is unnecessary, under the view we take of the case, to decide. The mortgage conveys to the mortgagee “the entire stock in the broom-making business lately owned by said Pattison and Fuller, consisting of all the broom-corn on hand and all the brooms and machinery.” The mortgage states that the mortgagors, Fuller and Graham, are to remain in possession of the property above described until default is made in the payment of the debts incurred.
After the close of the plaintiff's case the court gave an instruction that, upon the evidence given, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Thereupon the plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave to move to set it aside, which motion was filed and overruled, and the plaintiff appealed to General Term, when the judgment of the Special Term was affirmed, and he has brought the case here by writ of error.
It is plain from the face of this mortgage that the mortgagors were to remain in possession for the purpose of carrying on their business as they had done before. Undoubtedly they were not to cease the business. Their business was to make brooms and sell them. They had on hand brooms ready for sale and broomcorn to make other brooms. This constituted their stock in trade. What is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barton v. Sitlington
...and subsequent, and purchasers. Bullene v. Barrett, 87 Mo. 185; White v. Graves, 68 Mo. 218; Weber v. Armstrong, 70 Mo. 217; Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204; Hubbell Allen, 90 Mo. 574, 3 S.W. 22. Even if the mortgages in this case were not void upon their face as a matter of law; yet, if the s......
-
Thompson v. Foerstel
...Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269; Billingsley v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547; Cator v. Collins, 2 Mo. App. 234; The State v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 445; Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204; Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; White v. Graves, 68 Mo. 218. The fact that the sales were to be made only with the consent of the mor......
-
Thompson v. Foerstel
...v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269; Billingsley v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547; Cator v. Collins, 2 Mo.App. 234; The State v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 445; Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204; Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; White v. Graves, 68 Mo. 218. The fact that the sales were to be made only with the consent of the mortgagee do......
-
Donohue v. Campbell
...of Mobley v. Letts, 61 Ind. 11, which was expressly overruled by the case of McFadden v. Fritz, 90 Ind. 590. The cases of Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204, and Garden v. Bodwing, 9 W. Va. 121, also cited by the plaintiff, support his contention. But see Hewson v. Tootle, 72 Mo. 632. The provisi......