Blakeslee v. Rossman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Clark County. Action for the unlawful taking, etc., of a stock of merchandise, alleged to have been plaintiff’s property, and for damages to plaintiff’s remaining goods and to bis business by sucb taking. Defendant, as sheriff, justified under executions against the property of one F arnham, alleging that the goods belonged to Farnham. On the 7th of August, 1874, Farnham was a merchant in business at Neillsville.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Clark County. Action for the unlawful taking, etc., of a stock of merchandise, alleged to have been plaintiff’s property, and for damages to plaintiff’s remaining goods and to bis business by sucb taking. Defendant, as sheriff, justified under executions against the property of one F arnham, alleging that the goods belonged to Farnham. On the 7th of August, 1874, Farnham was a merchant in business at Neillsville. He had become embarrassed in business, and was then trying to effect a compromise with his creditors. On that day he called on the plaintiff and one…
1Opinion of the CourtRyan, C. J.
The chattel mortgage and accompanying agreement, contemporaneously executed, to govern the same subject matter between the parties, must be taken together and dealt with as one contract. Elmore v. Hoffman, 6 Wis., 68; Norton v. Kearney, 10 id., 443.
So taken, they give a mortgage by a merchant to creditors of his entire stock of goods, licensing the mortgagor to remain in possession and dispose of the goods in the course of his trade, applying one-half of the proceeds of the sales towards his liability to the mortgagees. No provision is made in either paper for the disposition of the other…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Robinson v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Edgell v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Wood v. LowryNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Butts v. PeacockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Frisbee v. LangworthyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Cameron, Hull & Co. v. MarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- In re Antigo Screen Door Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
- Wilson v. VoightSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
- Boyden v. RobertsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Anderson v. PattersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.