Simpson v. Harris
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Ormsby county. Richard Rising, District Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It was clearly error on the part of the court below to subordinate the lien of appellant to that of the Langley & Michaels Company as to the property embraced in appellant’s mortgage. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the State of Nevada, Ormsby county. Richard Rising, District Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. It was clearly error on the part of the court below to subordinate the lien of appellant to that of the Langley & Michaels Company as to the property embraced in appellant’s mortgage. II. Appellant’s mortgage was not only recorded before intervener’s, but appellant had taken possession of the mortgaged property and had brought action to foreclose his mortgage before intervener filed his mortgage for record. Intervener’s mortgage was void as to appellant…
1ConcurrenceBioulow, J.
I concur in the conclusion announced by Chief Justice Murphy, but upon grounds somewhat different from those stated by him. There can be no question that under our statute, where there is no change of possession of the property, a chattel mortgage which is not recorded until a second mortgage has been honestly and in good faith taken and recorded, must be postponed to the second mortgage, although the latter was taken with notice of the existence of the first. The statute itself is clear, and the numerous cases cited by appellant’s counsel show that the question has been too often decided to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Billings v. . RussellNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Jones v. AdamsNevada Supreme Court · 1885
- City of Burlington v. GilbertSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Warring v. FreearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Brandt v. WheatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.