Murphy v. Currie

• Citation: 57 P. 795,21 Wash. 232
• Parties: MURPHY v. CURRIE, Sheriff, et al. (STEWART et al., Interveners.
• Decision Date: 12 June 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

57 P. 795

21 Wash. 232

MURPHY v. CURRIE, Sheriff, et al. (STEWART et al., Interveners.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 12, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid, Judge.

Action by William Murphy against Dan Currie, as sheriff, and another. Stewart and others intervened. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff and interveners appeal. Affirmed.

Denney & Hullbert, for appellant interveners.

Bell &amp Austin, for appellant Murphy.

James Kiefer, for respondents.

GORDON, C.J.

Appellants in this cause were plaintiffs in actions brought in the justice court against one Contine, and in those actions had attached the property which is here in dispute. After the levy of the writs of attachment, respondent Carstens &amp Earles, acting through the respondent sheriff, began proceedings to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon the property. Thereafter the foreclosure proceedings were removed to, and tried out in, the superior court of Snohomish county. The question to be determined is the priority of lien. It appears that the Seattle Box & Manufacturing Company had given a chattel mortgage to the respondent Carstens & Earles upon certain mill machinery, including a planer; the latter being the only property here in dispute. The mortgage was given to secure an indebtedness of $700. Subsequently Contine, being desirous of purchasing a planer, was informed by respondent of its mortgage, and directed to the mortgagor. Negotiations resulted in the planer being shipped by the mortgagor to Contine, and in respondent's crediting the mortgagor upon the note with the sum of $400. It also appears that Contine had at that time an open account with the mortgagee, to whom he was making shipments of lumber. The real question is whether the mortgagee released its lien or waived its rights under the mortgage. The lower court found that there was no such intention, and this finding is well supported by the evidence. Appellants' contention is that the transaction, in effect, amounted to a surrender by the mortgagor to the mortgagee of the portion of the mortgaged property in dispute, and a subsequent sale by the mortgagee to Contine. We do not think that the evidence justifies this contention. Among the exceptions to the findings of the trial court, we find in the brief of appellants the following 'They except to the finding of the court wherein the court finds that one Contine, acting for himself * *...