The Omaha Auction & Storage Co. v. Rogers
Decision Date | 30 June 1892 |
Citation | 52 N.W. 826,35 Neb. 61 |
Parties | THE OMAHA AUCTION & STORAGE CO. ET AL. v. HARRIET ROGERS |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before DOANE, J.
AFFIRMED.
Cavanagh & Thomas, for plaintiff in error, cited: Engster v State, 11 Neb. 542; Holmes v. Bailey, 16 Id 305; Ahlman v. Meyer, 19 Id., 68; Holmes v Bell, 3 Cush. [Mass.], 322; N. E. Mtg. Sec. Co. v. Aughe, 12 Neb. 506; Perkins v. Conant, 29 Ill. 184.
J. W. West, contra, cited: Charter v. Stevens, 3 Denio [N. Y.], 33.
This action was brought by the defendant in error to recover from one Octave Bouscaren the value of certain household goods sold under an alleged foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. The plaintiffs in error (defendants below) alleged in their answer that the goods were sold under a chattel mortgage executed by Mrs. Rogers to one named Conalline, which mortgage was assigned to Bouscaren. Mrs. Rogers in her reply alleges usury in the transaction in which the chattel mortgage was given, and a tender of the amount lawfully due thereon prior to the sale. The cause was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Rogers for the sum of $ 408.02, upon which judgment was rendered.
The chattel mortgage is as follows:
The goods were sold under mortgage on the 23d of April, 1889.
The testimony of Mrs. Rogers is that she borrowed $ 75 from Bouscaren and executed a note and mortgage to him for $ 97.50, due in three months, that she made various payments during the ensuing nine months, amounting in all to $ 69. Bouscaren testifies that he made the loan, that he was not certain as to the exact amount, but he thought he loaned $ 90. He admits that in any event the loan was grossly usurious. He also admits receiving $ 65 as payment on the debt before the foreclosure of the mortgage. The note and mortgage seem to have been taken in the name of Conalline to enable Bouscaren to claim that he was an innocent purchaser thereof.
The first objection made by the plaintiff in error is that Mrs. Rogers was not competent to testify as to the value of the goods. It is true she was not dealing in goods, but her testimony shows that she was acquainted with goods of this character and knew something of their value. Her first statement as a witness was that she knew the value of the goods, and her cross-examination failed to show that she did not possess sufficient knowledge to testify as to their value. Her testimony is fair, and while she did not profess to be a dealer in second-hand goods she did show a sufficient knowledge to entitle her to testify as to the value. (Rogers on Expert Testimony [2d Ed.], sec. 152.
Second--It is claimed that there was no conversion of the goods shown. We think differently, however. It is admitted that considerable more goods were sold than were necessary to satisfy the debt. Where such is the case, the mortgagee is liable for the conversion of the goods so unnecessarily sold. (Charter v. Stevens, 3 Denio 34.)
Third--Objections are made to instructions 1 and 2 given by the court on its own motion....
To continue reading
Request your trial