Voorhis v. Langsdorf
| Citation | 31 Mo. 451 |
| Parties | ROBERT S. VOORHIS, Respondent, v. MORRIS LANGSDORF et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1862 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. To render a deed of trust or mortgage upon personal property, duly recorded, fraudulent upon its face, the deed must plainly or by necessary implication express the right of the grantor to remain in possession, and his power to dispose of the property.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
This was a suit against the sheriff and the plaintiffs in execution, to recover damages for the taking the goods and merchandise claimed by the plaintiff as trustee in a deed of trust. The verdict and judgment were entered for the plaintiff, and defendants appealed.
Krum & Harding, for appellants.
The deed of trust was void upon its face, under the decisions of Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269; Billingsley's adm'r v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547.
Decker & Voorhis, and H. N. Hart, for respondent.
The deed does not appear upon its face to be made for the grantor's own use. (Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; Walter v. Wimer, 24 Mo. 63; Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269.)
This case was heretofore submitted to the court, and an opinion prepared by Judge Napton, in which Judge Ewing concurred, but no judgment entered. The parties now agree that that opinion shall stand as the decision of the court, and be of like effect as if the same were rendered in said cause.
Therefore, that opinion is adopted as governing the case, and, the other judges concurring, the judgment below is affirmed.
This is a deed of trust, conveying a stock of merchandise, to secure the payment of a debt, and the merchandise is described as consisting of embroideries, laces, &c., now in, or which may, from time to time, be added to said stock in store No. 100, on the west side of Fourth street.
Not a word is said in the deed about the possession of the goods, nor anything about any power of sale, except by the trustee, when the debts fell due. But it is contended that the words “which may be added, from time to time, to said stock,” necessarily imply both a retention of possession by the grantor and a power of sale, and therefore bring the deed within the decisions in Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 270, and Billingsley v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547.
When a court pronounces a deed of this character void upon its face, the terms should plainly express the right of the grantor to the possession, and his power of disposition of the property, or the implication should be a necessary one. In the case cited, Norris conveyed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Drug Co. v. Robinson
...addition of other property to the stock on hand, imply a power to sell any of that then on hand. Hewson v. Tootle, 72 Mo. 632; Voorhis v. Langsdorf, 31 Mo. 451; Miller v. Jones, 15 Nat. B'k Reg. 150. The filling up of the blank date of the execution of the mortgage at plaintiff's instance, ......
-
Armstrong v. Tuttle
...445; Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269, 271; Howell v. Bell, 29 Mo. 137; State v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 445; Voorhis v. Langsdorf, 31 Mo. 451; Martin v. Rice & Maddox, 24 Mo. 581; Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; Howell v. Bell., 29 Mo. 137.) If, however, this court should be o......
-
Wright v. Bircher's Ex'r
...v. Winslow, 2 Story 630; Fletcher v. Morey, 2 Story 555; Willink v. Morris Canal Co., 3 Green Ch. 377; In re Howe, 1 Paige 129; Voorhis v. Langsdorf, 31 Mo. 451; State to use of Decker v. D'Oench, 31 Mo. 453; State to use of Voullaire v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 445; Macomber v. Parker, 14 Pick. 497;......
-
Hewson v. Tootle
...Seymour, 46 Conn. 156; s. c., 9 Rep. 79; Evans v. Sprague, 30 Wis. 303; Morrow v. Reed, 30 Wis. 81; State v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 443; Voorhis v. Langsdorf, 31 Mo. 451; Harmon v. Rice, 11 Met. (Mass.) 333; Carrington v. Smith, 8 Pick. 419. 2. As to fraudulent conveyances, see Milburn v. Waugh, 11......