Reiss v. Argubright
| Decision Date | 17 December 1902 |
| Citation | 92 N.W. 988,3 Neb. [Unof.] 756 |
| Parties | REISS v. ARGUBRIGHT. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 2. Error to district court, Lancaster county; Holmes, Judge.
“Not to be officially reported.”
Action by Christopher G. Reiss against George W. Argubright. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Willard E. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.
Frank J. Kelley, for defendant in error.
As there is no bill of exceptions, the greater number of the errors assigned are not reviewable. Objection is made to the answer, in that defendant “states and alleges that he denies each and every allegation” of the petition, instead of denying them directly. This form of answer is not commendable, but it is a sufficient general denial. Moen v. Eldred, 22 Minn. 538;Wadleigh v. Bank, 58 Wis. 546, 17 N. W. 314. The petition alleges that plaintiff is entitledto the immediate possession of the property in dispute, under a chattel mortgage made by Mary Britt and T. F. Britt. The court, in its instructions, said that plaintiff claimed under a mortgage made by Mary Britt. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, we cannot say that this was erroneous or prejudicial. If the mortgage was given by Mary Britt as owner, and T. F. Britt was a mere nominal party, plaintiff's case was fairly stated. There is nothing to indicate that such was not the case. Another instruction is objected to because it uses the word “parties” in two senses in the same paragraph; in one case referring to the parties in the suit; in the other, to the parties to an instrument. There is no difficulty in understanding what is meant, and we see no reason to suppose that any juror was misled. We must presume that jurors are possessed of ordinary intelligence. Two other instructions explain the nature and effect of an oral chattel mortgage. It is contended that there can be no such thing under our statute, and that, if there could, as the plaintiff claimed under a written mortgage, disclosed in his pleadings, the oral mortgage would be invalid as to him. These questions have been decided repeatedly. An oral chattel mortgage is good as between the parties thereto and others having notice thereof. It is invalid only as to creditors and subsequent purchasers in good faith. Conchman v. Wright, 8 Neb. 1, 4;Sparks v. Wilson, 22 Neb 112, 114, 34 N. W. 111. “Creditor,” in this connection, means judgment, execution, or attachment creditor. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental National Bank of Salt Lake City v. Naylor
...1034; Milton v. Boyd, 49 N.J. Eq. 142, 22 A. 1078; Karse v. Gane, 136 N.Y. 316, 32 N.E. 1073; Reiss v. Argubright, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 756, 92 N.W. 988; Eason v. Garrison, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 574, 82 800; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 193 F. 350, 113 C. C. A. 274; Youngberg v. Walsh, 72 Kan. 220, 83 P. ......
-
In re Estate of Hitchens
... ... App. 574, 82 S.W. 800; Button v. Rathbone, 126 ... N.Y. 187, 27 N.E. 266; Farmers', etc., Bank v ... Anthony, 39 Neb. 343, 57 N.W. 1029; Reiss v ... Argubright, 3 Neb. Unoff. 756, 92 N.W. 988; ... Youngberg v. Walsh, 73 Kan. 220, 83 P. 975; Holt ... v. Crucible Steel Co., 224 U.S. 262, ... ...
-
Stoddard v. Ploeger
...111 Am. St. 537, 95 N.W. 635; Dexter v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 4 Neb. (Unof.) 380, 94 N.W. 530; Reiss v. Argubright, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 756, 92 N.W. 988; Gray Doty, 77 Kan. 446, 94 P. 1008; Youngberg v. Walsh, 72 Kan. 220, 83 P. 972.) Where the verdict of the jury is for the plaintiff in an actio......
-
Petition of Gray
...126 N. Y. 187, 27 N. E. 266; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Anthony, 39 Neb. 343, 57 N. W. 1029; Reiss v. Argubright, 3 Neb. Unoff. 756, 92 N. W. 988;' Youngberg v. Walsh, 73 Kan. 220, 83 Pac. 975; Holt v. Crucible Steel Co., 224 U. S. 262, 32 Sup. Ct. 414, 56 L. Ed. 756; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 1......