Chase v. Denny
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, by the assignees in insolvency of Albert E. Smith, and of the firm of Smith and Collier, for money had and received. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Contract, by the assignees in insolvency of Albert E. Smith, and of the firm of Smith and Collier, for money had and received. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: On December 18, 1878, Albert E. Smith made two mortgages to David E. Merriam as trustee for the Leicester National Bank, to which Smith was largely indebted, of certain stock then in his mills, and also of all property of a similar character which he might afterwards acquire and place in his mills. These mortgages were duly recorded…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
It has been repeatedly held in this Commonwealth that a mortgage purporting to convey all the chattels of specified kinds which may thereafter be acquired by the mortgagor does not give any title to those chattels when acquired by him, unless the mortgagee takes possession of them. Jones v. Richardson, 10 Met. 481. Barnard v. Eaton, 2 Cush. 294. If, however, the after-acquired property is taken by the mortgagee into his possession before the intervention of any rights of third persons, he holds it under a valid lien, by the operation of the provision of the mortgage in regard to it. This is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McCaffrey v. . WoodinNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Walker v. VaughnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1866
3Cited by19 opinions
- Blanchard v. CookeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Adams v. YoungMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Marsh v. WadeWashington Supreme Court · 1889
- Mower v. McCarthySupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Coggan v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.