Schneller v. Vincent
| Decision Date | 06 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | 18653. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHNELLER v. VINCENT. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Mills, Judge.
Action by G. G. Schneller against H. H. Vincent. From a judgment of dismissal on defendant's motion for nonsuit made at the close of plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
John C Hurspool and Cary M. Rader, both of Walla Walla, for appellant.
Sharpstein Smith & Sharpstein, of Walla Walla, for respondent.
This is an action for the conversion of 375 head of sheep covered by chattel mortgage held by appellant against one John Paxton for $2,400. The sheep in question at the time of the execution of the mortgage were in Franklin county Wash. In the summer they were pastured in Umatilla county, Or. The chattel mortgage was filed for record in Franklin county within 10 days of its execution and also recorded in Umatilla county, Or. In October, 1922, the sheep were transferred to the ranch of one E. C. Burlingame in walla Walla county. They continued to be pastured in Umatilla county, Or., in the daytime, and at night they were kept in Walla Walla county. These sheep were placed with a large number of sheep on which respondent held a chattel mortgage in the sum of $50,000. The respondent knew of the existence of the mortgage of appellant. Within 30 days after the sheep had been taken to Walla Walla county, respondent sold all of them and applied the entire proceeds to the indebtedness due him from Paxton.
After the introduction of the evidence of appellant, the trial court granted a motion for a nonsuit upon the ground that appellant had failed to file the mortgage in Walla Walla county within 30 days from the time the sheep were taken to Walla Walla county. Judgment of dismissal having been entered, this appeal was taken.
It is the claim of respondent that under the rule laid down in the case of Muller v. Bardshar, 119 Wash. 252, 205 P. 845, the mortgage was void because a copy of it was not filed in Walla Walla county within 30 days from the time the sheep were taken into that county. In that case it was said:
'The language used in the statute, that the property is exempted from the operation of the mortgage unless the mortgage is filed within 30 days after its removal, is equivalent to saying that the lien is absolutely lost as to a subsequent purchaser, or any one except the parties to the mortgage, if the property is not followed and the mortgage filed for record within 30 days after its removal to the county.'
In this action, however, the appellant is not claiming a lien upon the property, but is endeavoring to recover for the conversion of the property. Appellant contends that there was no necessity of filing a copy of the mortgage in the county of Walla Walla after respondent had converted the property to his own use.
If appellant were endeavoring to maintain a mortgage lien upon the sheep, he would be unable to do so under the rule laid down in the case of Muller v. Bardshar, supra. This is not the purpose of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union State Bank of Wapato v. Warner
...placed of record in King county, looking to the protection of its mortgage lien as against the hay, in that county. Schneller v. Vincent, 131 Wash. 238, 229 P. 737. may be conceded that in a legal sense Warner acquired title to the hay before Rice or Murphy acquired title to the hay; but th......
-
Ingersol v. Seattle-First Nat. Bank
...out its subject matter so that a third person upon a reasonable investigation may identify the chattels covered. Schneller v. Vincent, 131 Wash. 238, 229 P. 737 (1924). In order to encumber cattle a mortgage must not only mention them but there must be at least some description of the anima......
-
Schneller v. Vincent, 18653.
...majority of the court is satisfied, upon the argument en banc, with the result announced in the departmental decision, Schneller v. Vincent, 131 Wash. 238, 229 P. 737, although there may be some question as to whether the establish an agreement on the part of the respondent to pay the appel......