Morris v. Hubbard
Citation | 86 N.W. 25,14 S.D. 525 |
Parties | MORRIS v. HUBBARD, Sheriff. |
Decision Date | 04 May 1901 |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Joseph W. Jones, Judge.
Action by John S. Morris against Chelsea W. Hubbard, as sheriff of Minnehaha county. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Keith & Warren, for appellant. Aikens & Judge, for respondent.
It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of certain described personal property, by virtue of having a special ownership therein, arising as hereafter alleged: That on September 7 1894, at Wichita, Kan., J. E. Bruce, Jr., and W. L. Bruce partners as Bruce Bros., executed and delivered to plaintiff the following instrument in writing: That on the same day, at the same place, and as a part of the same transaction, the plaintiff made and entered into the following agreement with Bruce Bros. and W. J. Bruce: That plaintiff, on said 7th day of September, 1894, at the place aforesaid, took immediate possession of all the personal property described in the aforesaid bill of sale and agreement, and plaintiff has ever since continued in the actual possession of said personal property, except that portion thereof which was unlawfully, and against the consent of the plaintiff, taken from his possession on or about August 26, 1895; that the personal property so taken from plaintiff's possession is of the value of $2,000; that before this action was commenced plaintiff demanded the possession of said personal property from the defendant, and the defendant refused to deliver the same to plaintiff; that the defendant is the acting sheriff of the county of Minnehaha, state of South Dakota; that the debt to secure which said mortgage was given is due and unpaid, and the amount due under said mortgage is $3,000. The answer contains a general denial, and alleges justification under an execution issued out of the circuit court upon a judgment in favor of W. H. H. Beadle against Bruce Bros. and W. J. Bruce. The jury found all the issues in favor of the plaintiff; found that he is entitled to the immediate possession of the personal property described in the complaint, by virtue of special ownership therein, as alleged in the complaint; that the value of such personal property is $2,550, and that the value of plaintiff's interest therein is $1,555.41. Judgment was rendered accordingly, a new trial was denied, and defendant appealed.
When the bill of sale and contract set out in the complaint were executed, the property mentioned therein was at Wichita Kan., in possession of W. J. Bruce, and mortgaged to one Stanley. The Stanley mortgage was satisfied with the proceeds of the loan from plaintiff, and the property, consisting principally of race horses, was taken to the plaintiff's ranch in the Indian Territory, known as the "Cherokee Stock Farm," where the horses were kept until the beginning of the following racing season, when a portion of them were shipped to various Western cities, where they were entered in races in the name of the Cherokee Stock Farm. Subsequently they were taken to Sioux Falls, without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and were there seized by the defendant, as sheriff, under an execution issued out of the circuit court on a judgment in favor of W. H. H. Beadle against Bruce Bros. and W. J. Bruce. It is conceded that the conveyance to plaintiff was intended to operate as a mortgage of personal property, and that under the law of Kansas it is absolutely void as against the creditors of the mortgagors, unless it was accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the property mortgaged. Under the charge of the court below, the jury necessarily found that the mortgaged property was owned by Bruce Bros., and that there was an immediate delivery, followed by an actual and...
To continue reading
Request your trial