Moebus v. Collins

• Citation: 89 A. 986,85 N.J.L. 430
• Parties: MOEBUS et al. v. COLLINS.
• Decision Date: 25 February 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

89 A. 986

85 N.J.L. 430

MOEBUS et al.

v. COLLINS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 25, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Elizabeth.

Action by Peter Moebus and others against Andrew Collins. From a Judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued November term, 1913, before SWAYZE and BERGEN, JJ.

John J. Stamler, of Elizabeth, for appellants.

Codding & Oliver, of Elizabeth, for respondent.

SWAYZE, J. The plaintiffs claim, by virtue of a chattel mortgage, 4 cows sold by them to one Miller, from whom the defendant bought. The defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value. The validity of plaintiff's claim depends on the validity of the chattel mortgage given by Miller to them. This mortgage covered "fourteen cows." There is no other description, but the judge found as a fact that it covered 5 cows bought by Miller of the plaintiffs, including the 4 now in question, and 9 others. Under this finding we must hold that, as between the plaintiffs and Miller, the title to the 5 cows was reconveyed by Miller to the plaintiff as security under the chattel mortgage. This finding, however, does not settle the right of the plaintiffs against the present defendant. As to him the chattel mortgage was void by the statute unless duly recorded. The object of the record was to give him notice. Whether the mortgage would suffice for that purpose turns on the sufficiency of the description in and of itself to pass title by way of mortgage. This depends on the situation at the time the chattel mortgage was given. If the mortgagor then owned only fourteen cows, title would pass. Shaw v. Glenn, 37 N.J.Eq. 32. Other cases are collected in Collerd v. Tully, 77 N.J.Eq. 439, 447, 77 Atl. 1079. If he owned more than 14 cows, so that something needed to be done to identify and segregate the specific cows meant to be mortgaged, title would not pass as against a bona fide purchaser, for the reason that, no matter what inquiry he might make, it would be impossible to ascertain what cows were mortgaged; and even if upon inquiry he learned, what did not appear on the face of the mortgage, that the cows bought of the plaintiff were meant to be included, it would still be open for the plaintiffs to claim that the intent of the parties was to be ascertained from the written document alone and that they had the choice of any 14 cows out of the herd. Such is the rule in Texas. In other jurisdictions, the description is generally held to be too...