Nelson v. Ferris
| Decision Date | 30 October 1874 |
| Citation | 30 Mich. 497 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | George H. Nelson v. William P. H. Ferris and others |
Heard October 29, 1874
Case made from Kent Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
D. E Corbitt, for plaintiff.
Benjamin F. Sliter, for defendants.
Plaintiff sued defendants in trespass for levying upon certain personal property in his possession, and which he claimed to own. The levy was under a judgment against Otto S. Hill and James M. Ferris, in favor of defendant Levi.
As the only error set up in the record is the judge's conclusion of law from the facts found, we are only required to consider whether the facts found support the judgment. If they do so, it is not very important to inquire whether the conclusions of law apart from the judgment are correct or not. Unless plaintiff has been injured by the judgment it will not be disturbed.
From an inspection of the finding the following facts appear. Ferris and Hill, the execution debtors, owned the property originally. In March, 1871, they gave a chattel mortgage on it to J. G. Chamberlin, with three negotiable notes, payable on the 1st days of June, September and December, 1871.
In June, 1871, Ferris and Hill gave a second chattel mortgage to one Norton, to secure a negotiable note due January 1, 1872.
September 16, 1871, one Tate, as deputy sheriff, levied upon these chattels in the possession of Ferris and Hill, on an execution under the Levi judgment.
At the time of this levy one Theodore Nelson had purchased the second and third Chamberlin notes (the first being paid and the third part paid), but they were not endorsed to him, and he had no assignment of the mortgage.
After Tate's levy, Theodore Nelson paid up the Norton mortgage, and purchased Ferris and Hill's title, subject to all liens, levies, and encumbrances.
Thereupon plaintiff and an agent of Theodore Nelson took the property away from Tate and removed it from Lowell to Grand Rapids, in the same county, in October, 1871.
On or about the 16th day of November, 1871, on its return day, Tate returned the execution unsatisfied, with a statement of the facts. A new execution was immediately levied under the same judgment, by a constable, and the property was taken from plaintiff and sold; and this is the trespass sued for.
On these facts judgment was rendered for defendants.
When Theodore Nelson purchased the property it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Island Banking Company v. Costello
...with consent of the mortgagee, were valid. (Evans v. Warren, 122 Mass. 303; Wisser v. O'Brien, 44 How. Pr. [N. Y.], 209; Nelson v. Ferris, 30 Mich. 497.) B. Keller, for Wood, Brown & Co.: The security taken by the appellant is excessive and the mortgage is therefore void. (Thompson v. Richa......
-
Bolln v. La Prele Live Stock Co.
... ... promise by the grantee of the equity of redemption to pay the ... junior liens. See also Nelson v. Ferris, 30 Mich ... 497, similar in theory, but where the right to personal ... property was in question, and Barry v. Garth Educational ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Pope
...of the notes, acquired an equitable interest in the mortgage which enabled it to deal with that instrument for all purposes. Nelson v. Ferris, 30 Mich. 497. Unless it is expressly stipulated to the contrary by the parties to the transfer, this is the rule. Ping. Mortg. § 980, and cases cite......
-
Hunt v. Strew
... ... [39 Mich. 371] ... mortgage which he had agreed to pay, in order to use it to ... defeat the enforcement of the execution. Nelson v ... Ferris, 30 Mich. 497. But an obligation not to avoid a ... valid lien is a very different thing from a promise to pay a ... debt to a third ... ...