Miller v. Bascom
| Decision Date | 31 March 1859 |
| Citation | 28 Mo. 352 |
| Parties | MILLER et al., Respondents, v. BASCOM, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where there is a reservation or limitation of personal property by way of condition, reservation or remainder, or otherwise, the same not being declared by will or deed duly proved or acknowledged and recorded, such reservation will not, by the operation of the fifth section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances (R. C. 1855, p. 803), be rendered void as to the creditors and purchasers of the person in possession, unless such possession shall have continued for the space of five years.
2. Where personal property is sold and delivered to a person with the understanding that it is to remain the property of the vendor until the purchase money is paid, this “reservation or limitation” in favor of the vendor is not invalidated by the operation of the fifth section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyance, by reason of a failure to declare the same by will or deed duly proved or acknowledged and recorded; said section has no such operation unless possession has continued for five years.
3. Layson v. Rogers, 24 Mo. 192, explained and modified.
4. The mere fact, that the grantor in a deed of trust which is recorded remains in possession of the trust property, is no evidence of fraud; the record is in such case equivalent to a transmutation of possession.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
This was an action for the possession of a mirror. Evidence was introduced tending to show that the mirror was sold by plaintiffs to one Hyde, under the understanding and upon the condition that the mirror was to become the property of Hyde if he should pay for it; until he should so pay, the mirror was to remain the property of the plaintiffs. He did not pay for it, but executed a deed of trust, embracing said mirror with other property, to secure indebtedness to third persons. Under this deed of trust a sale was made, and Bascom, the defendant, became the purchaser of the mirror. He purchased with notice of the rights of the plaintiffs. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The defendant asked the court to instruct as follows: The court refused so to instruct, and found for the plaintiffs.
Morehead and Carroll, for appellant.
I. The court erred in refusing the instructions asked. The reservation or limitation was void. (See R. C. 1855, p. 808, § 5; Layson v. Rogers, 24 Mo. 192; Bryson v. Penix, 18 Mo. 18; 12 Mo. 379.)
H. N. Hart, for respondents.
Without determining the question whether the contract proved by the plaintiffs, that the mirrors were to be the property of the plaintiffs until they were paid for, created a reservation or limitation of any use or property by the way of condition, reversion or remainder, within the meaning of the fifth section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances, we are of the opinion that the section, to which reference has been made, does not apply to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Gilbert Book Company v. Sheridan
...loans of property, can have no application in this case; there was no possession in Reading "for the space of five years." Miller v. Bascom, 28 Mo. 352. But even if the transaction between respondent and can in any sense be construed as a "conditional sale" under the provisions of section 3......
-
Gilbert Book Co. v. Sheridan
...nor to any other case where the facts disclose a mere temporary loan or bailment of property. Oyler v. Renfro, 86 Mo. App. 321; Miller v. Bascom, 28 Mo. 352. The case, then, comes strictly within the law of an ordinary temporary loan or bailment of property, which is a common, everyday occu......
-
Menefee v. Scally
...It was prior to plaintiff's mortgage and was promptly placed of record. Section 2256, R. S. 1919; Feurt v. Rowell, 62 Mo. 524; Miller v. Bascom, 28 Mo. 352. Whether sufficient facts were pleaded to raise the issue of estoppel, and without regard to whether plaintiff showed in any way that h......
-
Blackwell v. Walker
...revision of the statues of Missouri, in 1835, the words 'as aforesaid,' italicized in the clause in brackets, were omitted; and in Miller v. Bascom, 28 Mo. 352, it was contended that a verbal conditional sale of was a 'reservation or remainder,' in favor of a vendor, and void as against the......