Sweetzer v. Mead
| Decision Date | 20 May 1858 |
| Citation | 5 Mich. 107 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frederick Sweetzer and others v. John C. Mead and Nelson B. Nye |
Heard May 7, 1858
Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
The case, so far as passed upon by the court, is fully stated in the opinion.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
E. W Morgan, for plaintiffs in error.
H. J Beakes and O. Hawkins, for defendants in error.
The plaintiffs brought replevin against Mead and Nye for certain goods. The plaintiffs claimed title by virtue of a chattel mortgage, executed by one A. G. Scott in the name of the firm of E. G. Scott & Co., of which he was a member, executed December 26th, 1853, and filed on that day in the town clerk's office at Ypsilanti, where the firm did business; and filed also, subsequently, on the 23d day of January, 1854, in the clerk's office at Ann Arbor, where also they did business. The mortgage was under seal. The defendant Mead held the property, by virtue of certain justice's executions, issued and levied on the 16th day of March, 1854, whereby the property was seized on claims against Scott & Co. These judgments amounted to about $ 1,000. The defendant Nye claimed to hold the same property by levy of a certain Circuit Court writ of attachment against Scott & Co., levied after Mead had seized the goods.
There was testimony in the case tending to show that no manual delivery of the mortgage was made to the plaintiff, who resided out of the state. There was testimony showing an indebtedness from Scott & Co. to plaintiffs, past due at the date of the mortgage, for nearly its amount; and an additional indebtedness, nearly due, for as much more. The mortgage provided that Scott & Co. might retain possession of the goods until demanded by the plaintiff; and they were in possession when the levies were made.
The court tried the cause without a jury, and found a special property in Mead to the amount of $ 1,020, under his levy, and in Nye, under his attachment, to the amount of $ 1,300, and gave judgment on this finding, in favor of them, jointly, for $ 1,709.51, the value of the goods as found.
A writ of error was taken, bringing the record, and also the exceptions taken on the trial, into this court for review.
We were asked to pass upon the facts in the original and amended finding upon which the decision of the court was based; but as no exception was taken to the legal rulings upon which the court arrived at its application of the facts and evidence, and as no case made under the statute has been brought up, we are not at liberty to examine the propriety of anything in that decision; but must take its conclusions as founded upon the law and the evidence. We can only regard, therefore, the exceptions taken on the trial, and the further question whether the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court conforms to the judge's finding of property.
The plaintiffs offered, on the trial, to show that on the 2d day of January, 1854, Scott & Co. sent to the plaintiffs the following letter: Which letter was proved to have been written by E. G. Scott, the partner who resided at Ann Arbor. This was offered to prove that the mortgage was founded upon a good consideration, and that it was not fraudulent as against the creditors of E. G. Scott & Co. The court rejected the testimony, and the plaintiffs excepted.
We think this testimony should have been received. The question of fraud is one which depends upon a great variety of circumstances. The fact that a chattel mortgage had been made by Scott & Co., and placed on record, without any notification to the mortgagees of its existence, would, we think, be very fairly regarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. Hannin
... ... seal is not necessary, to the validity of an instrument ... executed under the authorization: Sweetzer v. Mead , ... 5 Mich. 107; Worrall v. Munn , 1 Seld. 229; Despatch ... Line v. Bellamy Man. Co., 12 N. H., 205, 234-7; Hunter v ... Parker , 7 ... ...
-
Citizens' State Bank of Atlanta, Kan. v. Person
...The court did not err in admitting in evidence the post card receipt from the bank to Robinson. It was a part of the res gesture. Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107. Proof of the signature of the agent of the bank was not necessary. The card was in answer to Robinson's communication sending the ......
-
McNeal Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Woltman
... ... seal was of no importance, and the affixing of the same did ... not invalidate the conveyance. Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 ... Mich. 107; Milton v. Mosher, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 244 ... This seems to be the doctrine as laid down in the text-books ... and in some ... ...
-
Trudo v. Anderson
...embodied in the finding, and this court will not now inquire into the propriety of anything in that decision: Rule 90 of C. C.; Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107. In more recent case, where an exception was taken to the conclusion of the judge's finding, the court reviewed the whole case: Wood ......