Bank of Hazlehurst v. Goodbar & Co.

73 Miss. 566
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Cooper, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is the misfortune of the appellant that in the security it accepted from its debtors was included the mortgage of the stock of goods and store accounts, under a contemporaneous ■oral agreement by which the debtors were permitted to continue their mercantile business, using the mortgaged stock of goods therein, selling the same, and reinvesting the proceeds. Under a long line of decisions, mortgages of this character have been held fraudulent and void as to other creditors. Harman v. Hoskins, 56 Miss., 142; Joseph v. Levy & Co., 58 Miss., 845; Britton & Mason v. Creswell, 63 Miss., 394; Tallman & Co. v. Tuttle Bros., 65 Miss., 495.

And, whether the agreement appears in the instrument or is shown by extraneous evidence, the same result will follow and the instrument be condemned. Britton & Mason v. Creswell, supra.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bank of Hazlehurst v. Goodbar & Co., 73 Miss. 566 (Mich. 1895).

73 Miss. 566 (Bank of Hazlehurst v. Goodbar & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

G. A. C. Trans-World Acceptance Corp. v. Migrothy
230 So. 2d 577 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1970)
Green v. Bohuslav
204 So. 2d 870 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1967)
In re Caver
42 F.2d 293 (S.D. Mississippi, 1930)
Coffeeville Bank v. Stone
118 So. 413 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Winchester-Simmons Co. v. Phillips
16 F.2d 109 (Fifth Circuit, 1926)
In re Wright & Weissinger
277 F. 514 (N.D. Mississippi, 1921)