People v. Bristol

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtCampbell, J.:
Citation35 Mich. 28
PartiesThe People for the use of Benjamin F. Farrington and others v. Ulysses D. Bristol and others
Decision Date13 October 1876

35 Mich. 28

The People for the use of Benjamin F. Farrington and others
v.

Ulysses D. Bristol and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 13, 1876


Heard October 5, 1876; October 6, 1876 [35 Mich. 29]

Error to Lapeer Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Gaskill & Geer and Charles Kudner, for plaintiffs in error, as to what constitutes a filing of a chattel mortgage, cited: Bishop v. Cook, 13 Barb. 326; as to the invalidity of chattel mortgages as against subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers in good faith, where there has been neither a filing of the mortgage nor a change of the possession of the goods: Wood v. Lowery, 17 Wend. 492; Camp v. Camp, 2 Hill 628; Thompson v. Van Veckten, 27 N. Y., 568; Parshall v. Eggert, 54 N. Y., 18; Tyler v. Strang, 21 Barb. 198; Farmers' L. & T. Company v. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 484; 5 N. B. R., 218; 10 N. B. R., 469; that the mortgage in question here does not attempt to cover after-acquired goods, and if it did, it would not be binding as against the rights of third parties: Jones v. Richardson, 10 Met. 481; Pettis v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. 468; Fowler v. Hoffman, 31 Mich. 215; and on the question of confusion of goods, they cited: Fowler v. Hoffman, 31 Mich. 215; Willard v. Rice, 11 Met. 483; Loomis v. Green, 7 Greenl. 383; Brown v. Cobleigh, 11 N. H., 560; Weatherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 317; and on the general subject they referred to: Conklin v. Shelly, 28 N. Y., 360.

W. W. & N. M. Stickney, for defendants in error, as to the validity of the clause permitting the mortgagor to retain possession of the goods and sell them in the usual way, cited: Kleiner v. Kalzenberger, 5 Am. 630; 20 Ohio St., 110; Gay v. Bidwell, 7 Mich. 319; James v. Haggeford, 3 Metc. 515; Barnard v. Eaton, 2 Cush. 294; Codman v. Freeman, 3 Cush 306; Mitchell v. Winslow, 12 Story 630; Abbott v. Godwin, 20 Me. 408; Melody v. Chandler, 12 Me. 282; Stedman v. Vickory, 42 Me. 132; and as to the sufficiency of the filing of he mortgage: Jordan v. Farnsworth, 15 Gray 517; and that the party guilty of a fraudulent confusion of goods loses all interest therein: Stephenson v. Little, 10 Mich. 44; Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. 298; Willard v. Rice, 11 Metc. 493; Hesseltein v. Stockwell, 30 Me. 237; Bryant v. Ware, 30 Me. 295.

OPINION [35 Mich. 30]

Campbell, J.:

This suit was brought on a sheriff's bond, to recover damages for the failure of an officer to enforce an execution against certain property sold under a chattel mortgage. In April, 1874, a mortgage was made by one Reed to [35 Mich. 31] Satterlee, Blackwell & Co., of New York, to secure seven hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-seven cents and interest. This was made upon "a general stock of merchandise, consisting of dry goods, groceries, boots and shoes, hats and caps, clothing, Yankee notions, and such other stock as is usually kept in a country store, together with the store fixtures and show cases not attached to the building, situated in Imlay City, Lapeer county, Michigan, in the store occupied by said Reed, on Third street." The mortgage, which was payable in thirty, sixty, and ninety days, authorized the property to be seized (but not sold before default) in case the mortgagees should deem themselves insecure, or if the property should be sold out of the usual course of business, Reed being allowed to make sales in the ordinary way, and required to pay the debt as it fell due therefrom.

On the 18th of August, 1874, the mortgage having become due, Stephen Henry, who was a deputy sheriff, was employed on behalf of the mortgagees to take possession of the mortgaged property and enforce the mortgage. He took possession of the whole stock, which is claimed to have been changed by sales and accessions, and having been informed by Reed that there were some new goods, requested the mortgagor to point them out, which he refused to do. Henry gave notice of the mortgage sale,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • Kerschensteiner v. N. Mich. Land Co., No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 4, 1928
    ...128 N. Y. S. 902;Metropolitan Trust Co. of New York v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, 172 App. Div. 653, 158 N. Y. S. 796;People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28;Orr v. Sutton, 119 Minn. 193, 137 N. W. 973,42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 146. Mortgagor was under no obligation to pay more than $1,850 in mortgage tax......
  • Rossman v. Hutchinson, No. 51.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 6, 1939
    ...another in giving security or conveying property in the satisfaction of his obligations. How v. Camp, Walk.Ch. 427; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28;Jordan v. White, 38 Mich. 253;Johnson v. Stellwagen, 67 Mich. 10, 34 N.W. 252;Beckman v. Noble, 115 Mich. 523, 73 N.W. 803;Michigan Trust Co. v.......
  • Grand Island Banking Company v. Costello, 6179
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 21, 1895
    ...48 Kan. 765.) The following cases were cited as to priority of liens: Chicago Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 18 Neb. 334; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28. M. B. Reese, also for appellant: The decisions that guided the court below in finding that appellant's mortgage was void have recently been overru......
  • Weiprecht v. Ripple, No. 260
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 18, 1958
    ...Pinkstaff v. Cochran, 1894, 58 Ill. App. 72; Wilcox v. Jackson, 1884, 7 Colo. 521, 4 P. 966; People to Use of Farrington v. Bristol, 1876, 35 Mich. 28; Partridge v. White, 1871, 59 Me. 564; and see additional cases cited in 1 Jones, Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (6th ed. 1933), § ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • Kerschensteiner v. N. Mich. Land Co., No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 4, 1928
    ...128 N. Y. S. 902;Metropolitan Trust Co. of New York v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, 172 App. Div. 653, 158 N. Y. S. 796;People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28;Orr v. Sutton, 119 Minn. 193, 137 N. W. 973,42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 146. Mortgagor was under no obligation to pay more than $1,850 in mortgage tax......
  • Rossman v. Hutchinson, No. 51.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 6, 1939
    ...another in giving security or conveying property in the satisfaction of his obligations. How v. Camp, Walk.Ch. 427; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28;Jordan v. White, 38 Mich. 253;Johnson v. Stellwagen, 67 Mich. 10, 34 N.W. 252;Beckman v. Noble, 115 Mich. 523, 73 N.W. 803;Michigan Trust Co. v.......
  • Grand Island Banking Company v. Costello, 6179
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • May 21, 1895
    ...48 Kan. 765.) The following cases were cited as to priority of liens: Chicago Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 18 Neb. 334; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28. M. B. Reese, also for appellant: The decisions that guided the court below in finding that appellant's mortgage was void have recently been overru......
  • Weiprecht v. Ripple, No. 260
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 18, 1958
    ...Pinkstaff v. Cochran, 1894, 58 Ill. App. 72; Wilcox v. Jackson, 1884, 7 Colo. 521, 4 P. 966; People to Use of Farrington v. Bristol, 1876, 35 Mich. 28; Partridge v. White, 1871, 59 Me. 564; and see additional cases cited in 1 Jones, Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (6th ed. 1933), § ......
  • 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