Jacobs Bros. & Co. v. Ervin
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Linn County. The facts are stated in the opinion. Contend that a mortgagor’s possession of the mortgaged goods, with the power of selling them in the usual course of business, does not make the transaction fraudulent per se; that fraud in such cases is a question of fact which must be proven. If fraud is alleged to exist in a sale or mortgage, it must be proved as a fact.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn County. The facts are stated in the opinion. Contend that a mortgagor’s possession of the mortgaged goods, with the power of selling them in the usual course of business, does not make the transaction fraudulent per se; that fraud in such cases is a question of fact which must be proven. If fraud is alleged to exist in a sale or mortgage, it must be proved as a fact. (Leonard A. Jones on Fraudulent Mortgages, page 30, and references given.) Statutes providing for the recording of chattel mortgages are a substitute for and equivalent to the possession of the mortgagee. (Forbes…
1Opinion of the Court
*54By the Court,
Watson, J.:
This suit was brought in the circuit court for Linn comity, to foreclose a chattel mortgage executed by McCalley & Andrews, in favor of the appellants, on March 7, 1879.
The mortgage was duly filed and registered in the office of the county clerk of Linn county, in which county the mortgaged goods were situated, on March 10, 1879.
On March 13, 1879, McCalley & Andrews being insolvent, ■ made an assignment of all their property, including that covered by said mortgage, for the benefit of all their creditors, to Abram Ervin, and delivered said property into his possession,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Yeatman v. Savings InstitutionSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Brownell v. CurtisNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Lord v. FisherIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Cleaves v. HerbertIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Sixth Ward Building Ass'n, No. 5 v. WillsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Security Savings & Trust Co. v. Portland Flour Mills Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Helm v. GilroyOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Bremer & Co. v. Fleckenstein & MayerOregon Supreme Court · 1881
- Fisher v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Sabin v. WilkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.