McLoud v. Wakefield
| Citation | 70 Vt. 558,43 A. 179 |
| Parties | McLOUD v. WAKEFIELD. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1898 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Exceptions from Caledonia county court; Thompson, Judge.
Replevin of a stock of hardware by J. H. McLoud, assignee, against A. E. Wakefield. Pro forma judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. Exceptions overruled.
The plaintiff is assignee in insolvency of Lawson Bros., and the defendant a deputy sheriff. The mortgage was framed to include such goods as might be purchased to replace those sold from the mortgaged stock, and contained a promise on the part of the mortgagors to keep the stock good.
Taylor & Dutton, for plaintiff.
B. E. Bullard and C. G. Austin, for defendant.
If the Bussey & McLeod Stove Company, for whom the defendant acted in taking possession of the goods replevied, had a right to take possession of the same, this action cannot be maintained. If the chattel mortgage of the goods from Lawson Bros, to W. P. Welch was invalid as to attaching creditors without notice, as claimed by the plaintiff, it was valid as between the parties thereto. A sale and delivery of the notes thereby secured to the Bussey & McLeod Stove Company, and a delivery therewith to them of the chattel mortgage, without an assignment thereof to them, authorized them, as the agent of Welch, to do whatever he had a right to do in the way of enforcing the mortgage against Lawson Bros. If there is no stipulation in a chattel mortgage to the contrary, the mortgagee has at any time the right to take possession of the mortgaged property. Until this right is exercised, the possession of the mortgagor is merely permissive. Longey v. Leach, 57 Vt. 377; Enright v. Dodge, 64 Vt. 502, 24 Atl. 768; Jones, Chat. Mortg. (1st Ed.) § 426. There was no provision in this mortgage that the mortgagor should have possession of the property until condition broken, and therefore the Bussey & McLeod Stove Company had a right to take possession of the goods when they did, although no part of the principal or interest of the mortgage debt was then due. Their possession at the time Lawson Bros, filed their petition in insolvency and when they were adjudged to be insolvent debtors cured any defects there may have been, if there were any, — which we do not decide,—In the execution or record of the mortgage. Having taken possession of the goods covered by the mortgage, but purchased subsequent to its execution and delivery, such goods come under its cover and operation as of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Reina Nash Motor Co.
...295; In re E. H. Webb Grocery Co., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 3 (Tenn. law); Edmundson v. Scofield, D.C., 92 F.Supp. 91 (Texas law); McLoud v. Wakefield, 70 Vt. 558, 43 A. 179; Gilfillan's Adm'r v. Bixby, 100 Vt. 468, 139 A. 250; Hansen v. Daniels, 73 Utah 142, 272 P. 941; Wasatch Livestock Loan Co. ......
-
Elizabeth Paska Et Al v. Bert H. Saunders
...to the contrary, the mortgagee had the right to take possession even though no part of the debt secured thereby had become due. McLoud v. Wakefield, supra; Longey Leach, 57 Vt. 377, 380. After condition broken, the whole title vested absolutely in Saunders, subject only to a right in equity......
-
Paska v. Saunders
...267, 18 A. L. R. 1426, and cases cited. Thereafter the possession of the mortgagor was permissive only and not of right. McLoud v. Wakefield, 70 Vt. 558, 560, 43 A. 179; Mason v. Sault, supra. There being no stipulation in the mortgage to the contrary, the mortgagee had the right to take po......
-
Newton v. Thomas
...A. 451; Campbell v. Bryant, 98 Vt. 486, 489, 129 A. 299; Mason v. Sault, 93 Vt. 412, 415, 108 A. 267, 18 A.L.R. 1426; McLoud v. Wakefield, 70 Vt. 558, 560, 43 A. 179. It is not disputed that in these circumstances, under the National Bankruptcy Act as it stood at the time of the filing of F......