Hasbrouck v. LaFebre
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to the District Court, Sheridan County; ITon. C. H. ParmelEE, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The agreement made at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage was an agreement hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors, thus making the mortgage void. A chattel mortgage permitting the sale of the mortgaged goods without requiring, the proceeds to be applied on the indebtedness is void on its face.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Sheridan County; ITon. C. H. ParmelEE, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The agreement made at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage was an agreement hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors, thus making the mortgage void. A chattel mortgage permitting the sale of the mortgaged goods without requiring, the proceeds to be applied on the indebtedness is void on its face. (Claflin v. Foley, 22 W. Va. 434; Stattuclc v. Knight, 25 W. Va. 590; Roden & Cave v. Norton & Co., 128 Ala. 129, 29^ So. 637; Gilbert v. Peppers, 65 W. Va. 793,…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, Justice.
On October 15, 1912, one C. H. Reeder, who was then engaged in general merchandising at Dayton, Sheridan County, Wyoming, borrowed two thousand dollars from the Citizens’ State Bank of Sheridan and gave his promissory note, signed by C. L. Olson and Grace L. Olson as sureties, both of whom have since deceased, for that sum payable *377one year after date, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable semi-annually. In order to indemnify and secure the Olsons, Reeder on the same day executed a chattel mortgage to them on his' stock of goods described in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re John A. Etheridge Furniture Co.District Court, D. Kentucky · 1899
- Patty-Joiner & Eubank Co. v. CumminsTexas Supreme Court · 1900
- Downes v. ParshallWyoming Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carroll v. AndersonWyoming Supreme Court · 1923