Lovejoy v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 28 March 1893
• Citation: 23 Or. 571,32 P. 687
• Parties: LOVEJOY v. CHAPMAN.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

32 P. 687

23 Or. 571

LOVEJOY v. CHAPMAN.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 28, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; James A. Fee, Judge.

Suit by Elizabeth Lovejoy against W.S. Chapman to redeem a contract of sale of real property, assigned to defendant to secure a loan. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

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

This is a suit to redeem a contract of sale of real property made by the Oregon & California Railroad Company to plaintiff, which she assigned to the defendant. She alleges that said assignment was made to secure the payment of $250 loaned to her by the defendant. She also alleges that, as additional security, she mortgaged to the defendant a large quantity of goods and canning tools, of the value of $960, which he sold and converted the proceeds to his own use; that defendant refused to permit her to redeem the contract; and that the amount due from her to him was fully paid by said proceeds of sale. The answer practically admits that the certificate evidencing said contract was assigned as security for a loan that defendant agreed to reassign the same to plaintiff upon the payment thereof; and that, plaintiff having failed to redeem within the time prescribed, the assignment had become absolute. He denies that the amount loaned was not more than $250, and alleges that the several sums loaned to her, and paid on her account, together with interest thereon, amounted to $1,322.43, and credits her with $150 on account of the sale of said goods and canning tools. After the issues were completed, the cause was referred to R.G. Morrow, who took the testimony, and reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. The court affirmed this report and decreed that defendant, within 30 days, reassign said certificate to plaintiff, upon the payment to him of $392.90, and awarded costs and disbursements to plaintiff, from which decree the defendant appeals.

A.H. Tanner, for appellant.

J.F. Watson, for respondent.

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

The evidence shows that on June 16, 1886, the defendant, by W.E Mulhollan, his agent, loaned $100 to the plaintiff, and that to secure the payment thereof she executed and delivered to said Mulhollan a chattel mortgage upon some goods and canning machinery; that on June 30th the defendant, by his said agent, loaned $45 more to plaintiff, and to secure the payment thereof she executed and delivered to said Mulhollan a chattel mortgage for $145 upon the same property; that the debt secured by the first mortgage was merged in the second that on August 17th the defendant, by his said agent, loaned more money to the plaintiff, and she executed and delivered to said Mulhollan another chattel mortgage, for $200, upon the same property, which several mortgages were duly assigned to defendant. The evidence in relation to the amount of money loaned to plaintiff on August 17th is quite conflicting. The plaintiff testifies that she received a sum which, added to the $145 she owed the defendant, made $200, and that the former debts were merged in this mortgage, while the defendant testifies that he loaned her at that time $200, and that this was in addition to the $145, and in this he is corroborated by the testimony of W.E. Mulhollan. The evidence further shows that plaintiff had a contract with Messrs. Mason, Ehrman & Co., of Portland, by which they agreed to purchase canned goods from her, and to further secure the defendant she issued an order on Messrs. Mason, Ehrman & Co., whereby she requested them to pay to W.E. Mulhollan one dollar per case for the first 200 cases of canned goods shipped to them by her. This order they duly accepted, and agreed to pay upon said conditions. That plaintiff failed to...