Radford v. Gaskill
| Decision Date | 15 November 1897 |
| Citation | 50 P. 854,20 Mont. 293 |
| Parties | RADFORD v. GASKILL et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Gallatin county; Frank K. Armstrong Judge.
Action by Joseph D. Radford against S. L. Gaskill and John H. Black. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Black, and from an order denying a new trial, said defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was an action to recover possession of 36 head of cattle included in a chattel mortgage securing a promissory note executed to plaintiff, and alleged to have been converted by the defendants. The suit was instituted on the 25th day of March, 1895. The case was tried to the court without a jury. From the trial court's findings of fact it appears that on January 4, 1893, the defendant Gaskill executed a note to one Godwin for the sum of $360, payable one year from date and also, for the purpose of securing the same, a chattel mortgage upon 50 head of stock cattle; that on January 2 1894, in pursuance of the statute permitting it, Gaskill extended said mortgage until the 4th day of January, 1895. Godwin died on the 26th day of March, 1894, in the county of Madison, of which he was a resident, leaving a large estate a part of which was in the county of Madison, and a portion in Gallatin county. One Van Allen took possession of the papers and effects of said deceased under the instructions of John Perry, one of the executors mentioned in Godwin's will, including the note of $360 aforesaid. On the 4th of June, 1894, letters of administration upon the estate of Godwin were issued by the district court in and for Gallatin county to the plaintiff, Radford, and said Van Allen, who qualified as administrators, and in good faith began to discharge their duties as such. On February 9, 1894, said Gaskill had executed to the defendant Black a note for $366 payable one year after date, and had secured the same by a chattel mortgage upon certain cattle. On December 15, 1894, Radford, having in his possession the note and mortgage executed by Gaskill to Godwin, and believing that he had authority to do so, accepted from Gaskill a note, secured by a chattel mortgage upon 60 head of cattle, in lieu of the original note and mortgage, the note being payable on or before April 1, 1895. The note and mortgage were executed to Radford individually for the sake of convenience for the benefit of the Godwin estate. At the same time Gaskill renewed the note he had previously made to the defendant Black, and for the purpose of securing the same executed to the said Black a new chattel mortgage; the note being payable on the 1st day of April, 1895. The mortgage to Black embraced the same cattle included in the mortgage to Radford, and it was agreed between Gaskill, Black, and Radford, and recited in Black's mortgage, that his (Black's lien) was to be second to that of Radford's upon said property. Black was aware of all the circumstances under which Radford accepted a new note and mortgage for the Godwin estate. On March 23, 1895, Black took into his possession--claiming to do so by virtue of his chattel mortgage last aforesaid--36 head of the cattle embraced in his own and Radford's mortgage, and sold the same. The reasonable value of the cattle at the time of the said taking and sale was $15 per head. After the bringing of this suit in conversion, namely, on the 15th day of November, 1895, the district court of Gallatin county dismissed all the proceedings in the matter of the estate of said Godwin, deceased, "for want of jurisdiction, the attention of the court being called to the fact that said Godwin died in the county of Madison, state of Montana, and being a resident of said county of Madison at the time of his death, and owning an estate therein." As conclusions of law from its findings of fact the trial court found that it had never had any jurisdiction of the estate of Godwin, deceased, and that the order dismissing the proceedings therein was properly made; that plaintiff and said Van Allen had never been legally appointed administrators of said estate; that plaintiff having come into possession of the note given by Gaskill honestly believing he was entitled to the possession thereof, and having exercised control over the same, had rendered himself legally liable to the estate for the note and for the mortgage securing the same; that the note mentioned in plaintiff's complaint had been taken in the name of the plaintiff with the full knowledge of defendants Black and Gaskill that it was for the use and benefit of said estate, and that thereby a trust was created in pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial