Sirrine v. Briggs
| Decision Date | 13 April 1875 |
| Citation | 31 Mich. 443 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William R. Sirrine v. Thomas H. Briggs |
Heard April 8, 1875
Error to Van Buren Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Richards & Barnum and C. L. Fitch, for plaintiff in error.
Lester A. Tabor, for defendant in error, was stopped by the court.
The controversy in this case relates to a stock of merchandise formerly belonging to the firm of Taylor and Beebe, merchants, and by them mortgaged to James Tillou. The mortgage being unpaid and due, Tillou, with the consent of the mortgagors, took possession, and while in possession, Taylor, one of the firm of Taylor & Beebe, in their name executed to him a paper purporting to transfer to him the interest of the firm in the goods, in consideration of the discharge of the mortgage and of the payment by Tillou of one thousand dollars on the debts of said firm. Subsequently Tillou sold to Briggs, who took possession, and while he was in possession, Sirrine, as sheriff of the county of Van Buren, levied upon a portion of the stock by virtue of an execution against the firm of Kelsey & Beebe, of which Taylor's partner was a member. It is for making this levy that Briggs brought suit against Sirrine in the court below.
The principal controversy in the case appears to have been whether the transfer by Taylor in the name of Taylor & Beebe to Briggs, was within the implied authority of a partner, and could transfer any title to the stock without the consent of Beebe. This question does not appear so important to us as it was thought to be by counsel. Whether that instrument was valid or not, Tillou, as mortgagee, had lawful possession, and when he sold to Briggs, he at least transferred all his rights as mortgagee, and this would entitle the latter to take and retain possession until the mortgage debt was paid or tendered. The mortgagors could not take from him a possession they had voluntarily surrendered to his assignor, and if the sheriff, under the circumstances, could have been justified in making a levy on the goods by virtue of an execution against the mortgagors,--which we do not decide,--it is plain that he could not, by virtue of an execution against only one of the partners, proceed to levy, as he did, upon specific articles of the stock only. The levy in such a case must be upon the partner's interest in the whole stock, for the only individual interest he has is his share in what shall remain after the partnership debts are paid and the accounts between the partners adjusted.--Gibson v. Stevens, 7 N.H. 352; Church v. Knox, 2 Conn. 514; Brewster v. Hammet, 4 Conn. 540; Ex parte Smith, 16 Johns. 102; Waddell v. Cook, 2 Hill 47.
Exception was taken to the introduction of the chattel mortgage in evidence, on the ground that a suspicious alteration appeared on its face which was not explained. The judge held an explanation not necessary. The original mortgage is not produced here, and we cannot therefore inspect it. We cannot presume error, and must therefore suppose that any alteration apparent on its face was not, in the opinion of the circuit judge, suspicious in appearance, and if so, he ruled correctly in receiving it in evidence. Unless they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Bonding Co. v. Regents of University
... ... dealers, viz., such market lists as dealers are governed by ... in their transactions. ( Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich ... 443; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 18 L.Ed. 116; ... Republican Newspaper Co. v. Northwestern Associated ... Press, ... ...
-
Midland Valley R. Co. v. Adkins
...but a statement in Cleveland & T. R. Co. v. Perkins, 17 Mich. 296, shows that both these cases support the rule, as also does Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich. 443. It is claimed by the defendant that the verdict was excessive, but an examination of the evidence shows that it was about right. A j......
-
Richards v. Fuller
... ... See Phelps ... v. Whitaker ante p. 72, and cases there cited, and ... Trevidick v. Mumford 31 Mich. 467; Sirrine v ... Briggs 31 Mich. 443; Rowe v. Wright 12 Mich ... 289; Bowker v. Johnson 17 Mich. 42; Facey v ... Otis 11 Mich. 213 ... [37 Mich. 164] ... ...
-
Midland Valley R. Co. v. Adkins
... ... R ... Co. v. Perkins, 17 Mich. 296, shows that both these ... cases support the rule, as also does Sirrine v ... Briggs, 31 Mich. 443 ... It is ... claimed by the defendant that the verdict was excessive, but ... an examination of ... ...