Strauss v. Austgen

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Teller.

The defendant in error had judgment in a replevin action brought by him to recover from the plaintiffs in error one movie camera and a tripod, upon which he had a chattel mortgage. Plaintiffs in error insist that the judgment is erroneous because the property is not sufficiently described in the mortgage, and that its locus is not given, and hence there is nothing to aid the description.

Tire property in question was a part of the' photographic outfit mortgaged by one Griebel to defendant in error on the 8th day of March, 1918. The parties to the mortgage are…