Rice v. Davis

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtEllison
Citation99 Mo. App. 636,74 S.W. 431
PartiesRICE et al. v. DAVIS et al.
Decision Date11 May 1903
74 S.W. 431
99 Mo. App. 636
RICE et al.
DAVIS et al.
Court of Appeals at Kansas City, Missouri.
May 11, 1903.


1. A mortgage on certain cattle, given to secure a note, provided that there should be paid, first, the debt described, secondly, sums loaned, etc., by the second party for the maintenance of the cattle, and, thirdly, all indebtedness created while any indebtedness mentioned previously should remain unpaid. The payee assigned the note, and, before the same was paid, the mortgagor gave other notes to the payee. Held, that the mortgage secured as a first claim the first note in the hands of the

[74 S.W. 432]

assignee, together with moneys paid out for maintenance of the cattle, and subject to such claims secured the latter notes.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by E. W. H. Rice and others against W. F. Davis and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

L. C. Boyle, for appellants. Beardsley, Gregory & Kirshner, for respondents.


This is an action for the conversion of a lot of cattle. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiffs.

The statement of facts out of which the controversy arises is somewhat complicated, and, while it was perhaps well enough that the parties should have set forth the detail of the case with the particularity they have, it is believed the following will be a sufficient statement for a full understanding of the ground of our decision: One J. W. Mosely gave a note payable to plaintiffs or order dated September 5, 1899, for $33,285.50, with 7 per cent. interest. He likewise executed a chattel mortgage on a large lot of cattle, a part of which are the subject of this suit, to secure the note and future indebtedness. Afterwards plaintiffs assigned and delivered this note to the National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City. Afterwards, Mosely being interested with one Wheeler in certain other cattle, he and Wheeler executed their three promissory notes to plaintiffs, aggregating $15,433.68, and secured such notes by chattel mortgage on the last-named cattle. The greater part of the last of these notes to fall due was not paid. The note for $33,285.50 was yet unpaid at this time. The provisions of the mortgage first mentioned, as to the indebtedness and its order of payment, are as follows, viz.: There shall be paid:

"1st. The indebtedness above described, when the same becomes due, either as above set forth, or by the terms of any extension or of any renewal note or obligation.

"2nd. All sums loaned, advanced or expended by the second parties for the maintenance or transportation of said property, or for any purpose connected therewith, and all indebtedness to the second parties, as commission or otherwise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Schindler, 61 B 336(1).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • 9 Octubre 1963
    ...to secure future advances. Foster v. Reynolds, 38 Mo. 553; Smith-Wallace Shoe Company v. Wilson, 63 Mo.App. 326, 330; Rice v. Davis, 99 Mo.App. 636, 74 S.W. 431; Jacques v. Goggin, 362 Mo. 1005, 245 S.W.2d 904. Also, as will be noted from authorities hereinafter cited in connection with the......
  • Coleman Nat. Bank v. Cathey, (No. 5583.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 1 Marzo 1916
    ...83 N. Y. 338, 38 Am. Rep. 434; Moore v. Terry, 66 Ark. 393, 50 S. W. 998; Davis v. Carlisle, 5 Ind. T. 83, 82 S. W. 682; Rice v. Davis, 99 Mo. App. 636, 74 S. W. 431; Bullard v. Stewart, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 49, 102 S. W. 174; Poulter v. Weatherford Hardware Co., 166 S. W. 364; 6 Cyc. 1019, no......
  • White v. Meiderhoff, 3828.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 2 Marzo 1926
    ...to and is valid in all particulars and is not fraudulent as against other creditors. Foster v. Reynolds, 38 Mo. 553 ; Rice v. Davis, 74 S. W. 431, 99 Mo. App. 636; Smith-Wallace Shoe Co. v. Wilson, 63 Mo. App. It is contended that the amount of the note and mortgage in this case was $29.52 ......
  • Rice Brothers v. Davis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 11 Mayo 1903
    ...74 S.W. 431 99 Mo.App. 636 RICE BROTHERS, Respondents, v. DAVIS, McDONALD & DAVIS et al., Appellants Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityMay 11, Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge. AFFIRMED. Judgment affirmed. Johnson, Rusk & Stringfellow and Boyle, Guthrie & ......
  • 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