Williams v. Chadwick
| Decision Date | 20 December 1901 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. CHADWICK. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from court of common pleas, New London county; Walter C. Noyes. Judge.
Action by Henry E. Williams against Elmer M. Chadwick. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The following facts appear by the finding of the trial court: The plaintiff resided in Brooklyn, N. Y., in the winter, and in the summer upon a farm in Salem, in this state, where the defendant kept a small general store. In December, 1898, the defendant applied to the plaintiff in New York for a loan of $300. Some discussion was had as to the giving of a chattel mortgage upon the defendant's property as security for such loan, but the plaintiff was advised by his attorney not to take such mortgage, "and neither party intended or desired a chattel mortgage." Finally the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to purchase of him certain personal property then in the defendant's possession at Salem, and to pay him $300 therefor, and a bill or memorandum was drawn up, but not signed, in this form: —and following this a list of items of personal property consisting of a wooden store building on leased property, and of horses, harnesses, carriages, 25 cords of wood, and various articles used in a small store, with value stated, aggregating $300. The plaintiff thereupon gave his check to the defendant for $300, which was afterwards cashed, and it was agreed that the defendant might retain possession of said personal property until the plaintiff should demand it. Afterwards, at the same interview, the defendant gave his note to the plaintiff for $300, payable to plaintiff's order, one year from date, with interest payable quarterly, and the plaintiff signed and delivered to the defendant an instrument dated at New York, December 27, 1898, and reading thus: "I hereby agree that when note given me this day by E. M. Chadwick for $300 is, together with interest on same, fully paid, to return all property to said E. M. Chadwick sold to me this day as per bill, and will relinquish all claim to said property at time of pavment of said note." In May. 1899, the plaintiff demanded of the defendant further security, and the defendant gave the plaintiff a bill of sale of all the goods in his store, for which $1 was paid by plaintiff. There was no delivery of said goods at the time, and the defendant continued to sell them as before; and the finding states that the court cannot find that an actual transfer or pledge was contemplated by the parties. In July, 1899, the plaintiff took possession of said store and the goods therein, and also of such of the personal property described in the bill dated December 27, 1898, as he could find, and in August, 1899, demanded of the defendant the delivery of the remainder of said property. The defendant has not paid the $300 note, and the trial judge states in the finding that he is unable to find for what purpose the note was given after the parties had agreed upon a sale. The plaintiff claimed that these facts constituted in equity a mortgage of the property described in the original bill of sale and in that of May, 1899, and that he was entitled to a foreclosure of the defendant's interest therein. The court did not so rule, but rendered judgment for the defendant.
Donald G. Perkins and Charles B. Waller, for appellant.
Seneca S. Thresher, for appellee.
HALL, J. (after stating the facts). The only question presented by this appeal is whether, upon the facts found, the transfer of personal property by the defendant to the plaintiff was, in effect, a chattel mortgage or an absolute sale. A chattel mortgage is a conditional sale of personal property to secure a debt or obligation of the mortgagor. The condition upon the performance of which the transfer is to become void should be contained in the instrument by which the property is conveyed. But a conveyance absolute in form will, in equity, be regarded as a mortgage when the facts show that the real transaction is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dupuis v. Welfare Com'r
...were intended merely to secure an indebtedness. Guilford-Chester Water Co. v. Guilford, 107 Conn. 519, 529, 141 A. 880; Williams v. Chadwick, 74 Conn. 252, 255, 50 A. 720. When an instrument is given for the purpose of effectuating a statute, its language is to be interpreted in the light o......
-
Terzano v. Clemente
... ... Sanditz, 105 Conn. 766, 772, ... 136 A. 580; and that the bill of sale was absolute in its ... terms would not affect this result, Williams v ... Chadwick, 74 Conn. 252, 50 A. 720. The conditional bill ... of sale from the plaintiff to Clemente would not prevent the ... application to ... ...
-
Stalker v. Hayes
...in executing an instrument may be shown by parol evidence. Lovell v. Hammond Co., 66 Conn. 500, 510, 34 Atl. 511; Williams v. Chadwick, 74 Conn. 252, 255, 50 Atl. 720; Post v. Gilbert, 44 Conn. 9, 18; Susman v. Whyard, 149 N. Y. 127, 130, 43 N. E. For the purposes of this case it is unneces......
-
Southern Finance Co. v. Mercantile Discount Corp., 11702.
...debtor and creditor exists. 11 C. J. 410 et seq.; 24 R. C. L. 446; Babcock Co. v. Williams, 75 Minn. 147, 77 N. W. 791;Williams v. Chadwick, 74 Conn. 252, 50 Atl. 720;Robinson v. Farrelly, 16 Ala. 472;Desloge & Rozier v. Ranger, 7 Mo. 327;Studebaker Bros. v. Mau, 13 Wyo. 358, 80 Pac. 151, 1......
-
Connecticut Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure: Lender Concerns and Title Issues
...(1860). 17. 47 Conn. 417 (1879). 18. 127 Conn. 622,18 A.2d 683 (1941). 19. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hall, note 17. 2O. Williams v. Chadwick, 74 Conn. 252,255,50 A. 720 (1901). 21. 140 Conn. 464, 101 A.2d 504 (1953). 22. 144 Conn. 7,127 A.2d 39 (1956). 23. Thompson on Real Property § 4734 at 32......