Tobin v. Kampe
| Decision Date | 26 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 12406.,12406. |
| Citation | 132 F.2d 64,145 ALR 366 |
| Parties | TOBIN v. KAMPE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Harry S. Gleick, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Clem F. Storckman, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The question presented is whether the record of a chattel mortgage given by Carl Arnold to Walter Kampe, the appellee, in January, 1938, to secure the payment of twelve notes for $50 each and one note for $674.36, constituted constructive notice, under Missouri law, that the thirteenth note was secured by the mortgage. The controversy arises out of the defective description of the thirteenth note. The mortgage, which was recorded January 29, 1938, described the secured indebtedness as follows:
After Arnold was adjudicated bankrupt on November 14, 1941, and Edward W. Tobin had been appointed trustee of the bankrupt's estate, Kampe on February 3, 1942, filed a petition to reclaim the mortgaged property, which consisted of laundry equipment and machinery which Arnold had purchased from him. Kampe asserted in his petition that two of the twelve notes for $50 each and the thirteenth note for $674.36 were unpaid, and that, by the terms of the chattel mortgage, he was entitled to possession of the mortgaged property. The trustee in bankruptcy, in his answer to the petition, conceded that the chattel mortgage was security for the two unpaid $50 notes, but alleged that, as against him, it was not security for the $674.36 note, "for the reason that the amount of said note is not set forth in said mortgage, nor is the amount of the obligation represented by said note in any manner described in said mortgage."
The referee in bankruptcy, after a hearing, determined that the mortgage was valid security for the three notes remaining unpaid, and entered an order directing the trustee to deliver to Kampe the mortgaged property or to pay him $774.36. The trustee petitioned for a review of the referee's order. The District Court, on July 9, 1942, entered an order adopting the findings and conclusions of the referee, and confirming his order. The trustee then appealed to this court from the order of the District Court.
No Missouri case has been cited, and we have found none, in which the question of the sufficiency of the description of the indebtedness secured by a chattel mortgage to constitute notice has been considered. There are many Missouri cases dealing with the sufficiency, as notice, of recorded chattel mortgages in which the property is inaccurately described. The rule is that a description of the chattels mortgaged is sufficient as constructive notice if a third person, with the aid of the description and by the inquiries which the instrument reasonably suggests, can identify the mortgaged property.1 The referee in bankruptcy was of the opinion that the same rule should be applied in determining the sufficiency of the description of the secured indebtedness. He pointed out that the record of a chattel mortgage is, by virtue of § 3486, R.S.Missouri 1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 3486, "notice of the contents thereof to all the world;" that the contents of the record of the chattel mortgage in suit disclose that the mortgage was given to secure thirteen notes, twelve of them for $50 each and the thirteenth for an undisclosed amount; that inquiry as to the amount of the thirteenth note was reasonably suggested by the instrument, and therefore the record was notice of what such inquiry would have disclosed, namely, that the thirteenth note was for $674.36.
There is no Missouri case which compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by the referee in bankruptcy and the court below. No statute of that state, in force at the time this mortgage was made, required a complete and accurate description of the secured indebtedness. Missouri decisions relating to misdescriptions of secured indebtedness in trust deeds covering real estate are convincing that, in the absence of fraud, if a misdescription of the indebtedness secured has caused no actual prejudice, the validity of the instrument as against those having notice, or being charged with notice, will not be affected by the fact that the indebtedness was not correctly described. The case of Williams v. Moniteau National Bank, 72 Mo. 292, dealt with a trust deed of real estate, in which the description of the indebtedness was inaccurate in that the amount of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Schindler
...the description and by the inquiries which the instrument reasonably suggests, can identify the mortgaged property. Tobin v. Kampe, 132 F.2d 64, 145 A.L.R. 366 (C.C.A.Mo.). In this chattel mortgage the mortgagor is identified as John D. Schindler of Audrain County, Missouri; the mortgaged p......
-
In re Kansas City Journal-Post Co.
...the description and by the inquiries which the instrument reasonably suggests, can identify the mortgaged property." Tobin v. Kampe, 8 Cir., 132 F. 2d 64, 65, 145 A.L.R. 366, and Missouri cases cited therein. We think any creditor reading the trust indenture would readily conclude that it a......
-
Kenneally v. Standard Electronics Corporation
...169 Minn. 434, 211 N. W. 838 (1927); Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 104, 22 N.W. 126 (1885). See also and compare Tobin v. Kampe, 132 F.2d 64, 145 A.L.R. 366 (8th Cir.1942). The items of property did not constitute part of a stock for retail sale. It was in possession of the mortgagor at the a......
-
Fisher v. Mikco Grain Co.
...Mo.App. 368, 376(3); Ranney v. Meisenheimer, 61 Mo.App. 434, 440(4); Estes v. Springer, 47 Mo.App. 99, 102--103; Tobin v. Kampe, C.A.Mo., 132 F.2d 64, 65(1), 145 A.L.R. 366; 1 Jones on Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (6th Ed.), § 54, p. 96; 15 Am.Jur.2d, Chattel Mortgages, § 55, p. ......