Oliver v. Eaton

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtCampbell J.:
Citation7 Mich. 108
PartiesWilliam M. Oliver v. Silas W. Eaton
Decision Date15 July 1859

7 Mich. 108

William M. Oliver
v.

Silas W. Eaton

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 15, 1859


Heard July 9, 1859 [7 Mich. 109] [Syllabus Material] [7 Mich. 110] [Syllabus Material] [7 Mich. 111]

Case reserved from Monroe circuit.

Action of replevin to recover possession of a stock of goods. Declaration in the usual form, to which the general issue was interposed by the defendant. The case was tried at the February term of said court, 1859, the Hon. B. F. H. Witherell, circuit judge, presiding. On the trial, it appeared that one John M. Oliver, a son of the plaintiff, had owned and carried on a drug store for several years in Monroe, Michigan, and that, to assist him, the plaintiff had given and loaned to him, and indorsed for him, to the amount of several thousand dollars; that, to secure his indebtedness to the plaintiff, said John M., on the twenty-eighth day of January, 1858, executed a chattel mortgage, which was duly filed in the city clerk's office, on the entire stock of goods, to the plaintiff, conditioned to pay him said indebtedness, and indemnify him against said indorsements; which said chattel mortgage contained the usual power to take possession of the goods, and sell them, in case of default, and to take possession of them in case the plaintiff should at any time deem the property unsafe in the hands of the mortgagor. The said John M. went on with the business, as his own, the same after the mortgage was given as before, making sales of the goods for cash, and on credit, in the usual course of trade, and applying the proceeds of the sales in buying other goods to keep up the stock, in the support of his family, and in paying debts owing by him, but applying no part thereof to the payment of the plaintiff's claims secured by the mortgage, or to pay the debts to collect which a levy was made on the goods, as hereinafter mentioned. When said mortgage was given, John M. Oliver owed debts to a considerable amount; two of which debts having been put in judgments in said court, and executions issued thereon, the defendant, who was sheriff of said county, in the month of August, 1858, levied on the entire stock of goods then in the store, by virtue of said executions, except a small amount purchased subsequent to the mortgage; whereupon, the goods were replevied, the plaintiff claiming them under said chattel mortgage. It further appears in evidence that the plaintiff resided in Penn Yan, N. Y., but that from the time of giving the mortgage to the levy, he had in Monroe an agent, having full power from him to take possession of the goods at any time, and to do what might be necessary to protect his interests in the premises. The agent was well acquainted with John M. Oliver, owned, and rented to him, the store in which he did business, himself did business in the same block, and was often in the store of John M. Oliver, but he never took or claimed possession of the goods, or interfered with the business of the mortgagor, till the levy was made. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against law and evidence.

Upon this motion, the following question was reserved by the circuit judge for the opinion of this court: "Whether the leaving of goods, covered by a chattel mortgage, in the hands of a mortgagor, by a mortgagee, with power to sell and dispose of the same in the usual course of trade, for cash or on credit, the mortgagor applying the proceeds of sales in the purchase of other goods to keep up the stock, and in the support of his family, and in paying his debts other than those secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee not asserting a right to the possession of the property, or the specific proceeds of sales thereof, or forbidding or preventing such sales, renders the mortgage null and void as against the creditors of the mortgagor, independent of the question whether there was any actual intent on the part of the mortgagor or mortgagee, or both, to defraud the creditors of the mortgagor, by means of the mortgage, or by means of such transactions subsequent to its being given.

Holbrook & Bishop, and C. I. Walker, for defendant:

1. The question of good or bad...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Ephraim v. Kelleher
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 6, 1892
    ...the rulings of the court would have been the same had no statute been enacted upon the subject. In the leading case of Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, which was very similar in point of fact to the one now before us, the question of fraudulent chattel mortgages is very exhaustively discussed,......
  • First Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Lindenstruth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • March 14, 1894
    ...only evidence of a fraudulent intent, for the consideration of the tribunal which has to determine the question of fraud. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108; Cheatham v. Hawkins, 76 N. C. 335; Fletcher v. Powers, 131 Mass. 333; Vanmeter v. Estill, 78 Ky. 456; Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N.......
  • Bender v. Kingman & Company, 9,810
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 21, 1902
    ...shows conclusively either that there was or was not fraudulent intent it is not error for the court to direct a verdict. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, 113, cited in Monteith v. Bax, supra, determines a like question. In the case of Hedman v. Anderson, 6 Neb. 392, cited by plaintiff in error......
  • People Sav Bank v. Bates
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1887
    ...of the mortgagees, it would not be held, as matter of law, to be absolutely void or fraudulent as to other creditors. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, 112; Gay v. Bidwell, Id. 519, 523; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28, 32; Wingler v. Sibley, Id. 231; Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 523. The good ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Ephraim v. Kelleher
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 6, 1892
    ...the rulings of the court would have been the same had no statute been enacted upon the subject. In the leading case of Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, which was very similar in point of fact to the one now before us, the question of fraudulent chattel mortgages is very exhaustively discussed,......
  • First Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Lindenstruth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • March 14, 1894
    ...only evidence of a fraudulent intent, for the consideration of the tribunal which has to determine the question of fraud. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108; Cheatham v. Hawkins, 76 N. C. 335; Fletcher v. Powers, 131 Mass. 333; Vanmeter v. Estill, 78 Ky. 456; Fisher v. Syfers, 109 Ind. 514, 10 N.......
  • Bender v. Kingman & Company, 9,810
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 21, 1902
    ...shows conclusively either that there was or was not fraudulent intent it is not error for the court to direct a verdict. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, 113, cited in Monteith v. Bax, supra, determines a like question. In the case of Hedman v. Anderson, 6 Neb. 392, cited by plaintiff in error......
  • People Sav Bank v. Bates
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1887
    ...of the mortgagees, it would not be held, as matter of law, to be absolutely void or fraudulent as to other creditors. Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108, 112; Gay v. Bidwell, Id. 519, 523; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28, 32; Wingler v. Sibley, Id. 231; Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 523. The good ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT