Legal Opinion

Huse v. Estabrooks

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 15, 1894PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Trover for two three-years-old and three two-years-old heifers. Heard on the report of a referee at the June term, 1894, Caledonia county, Tyler, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The mortgage was invalid for uncertainty in the description. Pingry, Chat. Mort., ss. 142, 143 ; Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596; Nicholson v. Carpe, 58 Miss. 34; Barrett v. Pisch, 76 Iowa 553 ; Parker v. Chase & Buck, 62 Vt. 206. The description was sufficient.

Read the full summary

Trover for two three-years-old and three two-years-old heifers. Heard on the report of a referee at the June term, 1894, Caledonia county, Tyler, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The mortgage was invalid for uncertainty in the description. Pingry, Chat. Mort., ss. 142, 143 ; Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596; Nicholson v. Carpe, 58 Miss. 34; Barrett v. Pisch, 76 Iowa 553 ; Parker v. Chase & Buck, 62 Vt. 206. The description was sufficient. Parker v. Cheney, 62 Vt. 206; Jones, Chat. Mort., ss. 53, 54; 1 Cobby, Chat. Mort., ss. 155 et seq.

1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.

The plaintiff relies for recovery on a chattel mortgage of which he is assignee, wherein cattle of the kind in question are described as “two two-year-old heifers and three one-year-old heifers,” without more. The defendant was never a party to the mortgage, but purchased of the mortgagor after the mortgage was given.

There was no evidence before the referee tending to show that at the time the mortgage was executed the mortgagor “owned or 'was possessed of any stock of the kind described in the mortgage except what is therein described, and no claim was made that he did not then own and have…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Shum v. ClaghornSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
  2. Desany v. ThorpSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
  3. Hannigan v. Italo Petroleum Corp. of AmericaSuperior Court of Delaware · 1935
  4. Hauseman Motor Company v. NapierellaCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
  5. Joslyn v. Moose River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API