Smith v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 29 December 1886
• Citation: 31 N.W. 55,36 Minn. 303
• Parties: Andrew J. Smith and another v. Ben Stevens
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

31 N.W. 55

36 Minn. 303

Andrew J. Smith and another v. Ben Stevens

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 29, 1886

The plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Todd county, to recover the possession of a pair of horses claiming the right of possession under a chattel mortgage from the owner, one Bosworth, which mortgage was duly filed on April 7, 1885. The answer alleges as a defence that the defendant is the proprietor of a hotel or boarding house that on May 7, 1885, Bosworth came to defendant's place of business as a guest, bringing with him the horses in question; that Bosworth was the owner and in possession of the horses; that defendant furnished them with necessary food and room for twelve weeks and three days, for the agreed price of $ 5.50 per week, of which no part has been paid except the sum of $ 23.75, and that the defendant claims a lien upon the horses for their food and care. Plaintiffs appeal from an order by Baxter, J., overruling a demurrer to the answer.

Order reversed.

J. D Jones, for appellants.

A. M Crowell, for respondent.

OPINION

Berry, J.

Under Gen. St. 1878, c. 90, §§ 16, 17, as the latter is amended by Laws 1885, c. 81, any person keeping any horses at the request of the owner or lawful possessor thereof, is entitled to a lien for his just and reasonable charges therefor, and may hold and retain the property until such charges are paid. This is, by its terms a law of general application as respects its subject-matter. It expressly provides that keeping at the request of the legal possessor shall be sufficient. This includes the case of a mortgagor lawfully in possession of mortgaged property, as by the express provision of the mortgage the mortgagor was in this instance. And a mortgage made, as was that in the case at bar, while this statute was in force, is made subject to it, as to other applicable general rules of law. A mortgagee, when he takes a mortgage, takes it, in legal contemplation, with full knowledge of and subject to the right of a person keeping the property at the request of the mortgagor or other lawful possessor to the statutory lien, as he would do to a common-law lien. Williams v. Allsup, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 417; The Granite State, 1 Sprague 277, 10 F. Cas. 964; Case v. Allen, 21 Kan. 217; Hammond v. Danielson, 126 Mass. 294; Jones, Chat. Mortg. §§ 473-475. The statute is therefore not unconstitutional as violating any contract or...