Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co.

19 N.W. 388, 32 Minn. 90, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 94

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 15, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 N.W. 388 (Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co., 19 N.W. 388, 32 Minn. 90, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 94 (Mich. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Berry, J.¹

The notes and the chattel mortgage were made by plaintiff at the same time, and as parts of one transaction. They are, therefore, to be read together. So read, they evidence a contract, by the terms of which “The Aultman-Taylor Machine” (as it is styled in the notes) was distinctly recognized by both parties as the property of the plaintiff, and any inference to the contrary which might be drawn from the clause in the notes providing that the title to the machine shall remain in the defendant until the notes are fully paid, is cut off. Hence, the case is not parallel to Third Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530, or to Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 27 Minn. 495. The machine was taken from the plaintiff and sold upon the chattel mortgage, which was in accordance with the foregoing construction of the transaction between the parties. For any balance of the notes which the chattel mortgage sale left undischarged, the plaintiff remained liable, and the defendant could, as a matter of course, resort to the real-estate mortgage to collect it.

Judgment reversed.

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

Berry, J.¹

The notes and the chattel mortgage were made by plaintiff at the same time, and as parts of one transaction. They are, therefore, to be read together. So read, they evidence a contract, by the terms of which “The Aultman-Taylor Machine” (as it is styled in the notes) was distinctly recognized by both parties as the property of the plaintiff, and any inference to the contrary which might be drawn from the clause in the notes providing that the title to the machine shall remain in the defendant until the notes are fully paid, is cut off. Hence, the case is not parallel to Third Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530, or to Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 27 Minn. 495. The machine was taken from the plaintiff and sold upon the chattel mortgage, which was in accordance with the foregoing construction of the transaction between the parties. For any balance of the notes which the chattel mortgage sale left undischarged, the plaintiff remained liable, and the defendant could, as a matter of course, resort to the real-estate mortgage to collect it.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.W. 388, 32 Minn. 90, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beer-v-aultman-taylor-co-minn-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack