Montgomery v. Wight
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court as follows: “This was an action of replevin, brought to recover one chestnut stallion called JaeJcsonian.” “There was evidence that on the 20th of March, 1858, F. W. Backus was the owner of the horse in question; that on that day he executed a chattel mortgage — but without any change of possession of the property — conveying this and other property to S. P. Brady.
Read the full summary
Case reserved from Wayne Circuit Court as follows: “This was an action of replevin, brought to recover one chestnut stallion called JaeJcsonian.” “There was evidence that on the 20th of March, 1858, F. W. Backus was the owner of the horse in question; that on that day he executed a chattel mortgage — but without any change of possession of the property — conveying this and other property to S. P. Brady. The mortgage was duly filed in the clerk’s office of the city of Detroit, and was in force and unpaid on the 11th of August, 1858. Prior to that time, and after May, 1858, Backus removed a…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.:
The questions arising in this case, all go to the inquiry whether the mortgage, made by Backus to Montgomery, takes precedence of the execution sale against Backus, Whereby the property was sold.
The mortgage from Backus to Montgomery was made in Canada, and, in order to be valid at all, must be sustained under the laws of Canada. It is claimed by the defendants that, under those laws, the description of the horse in controversy is insufficient.
*147By the Canadian statute of 20 Vic. C. 3, § 4, it is declared that a mortgage of chattels, “shall contain such efficient and full…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Golden v. CockrilSupreme Court of Kansas · 1862
- People ex rel. Esper v. BurnsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. GarfieldMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Corbett v. LittlefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- F. E. Creelman Lumber Co. v. LeshSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.