Comstock v. Scales

7 Wis. 159
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 7 Wis. 159 (Comstock v. Scales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Comstock v. Scales, 7 Wis. 159 (Wis. 1859).

Opinion

By the Court,

Cole J.

The defendant in error claimed the grain in controversy, by virtue of a chattel mortgage, given upon it, about the time the grain was sowed and planted, and before the same was up or presented the appearance of growing grain, and the circuit court instructed the jury upon this point, that as soon as the grain was sown, Hatch, the tenant, could mortgage his half of the crop, and that the same would be held by the mortgage. This instruction we consider erroneous. In our opinion a chattel mortgage can only operate upon property in actual existence at the time of execution, and cannot be given, as was attempted to be done in this case, upon a crop before it can be said to be in existence. Since the subject matter of the chattel mortgage was not in esse at the time the mortgage was executed, there was nothing for it to operate upon. This doctrine seems to be settled by the following authorities: The Bank of Lansingburg vs. Crary et al. 1 Barb. S. C. R. 542. Otis vs. Sill, 8 id. 102, and the cases cited and commented upon by Justice Paige in these decisions. As this question disposes of this case and involves the necessity of a new trial, we do not feel called upon to notice the other points upon the briefs of counsel.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and a new trial ordered.

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

Related

First Security Co. v. Huddle
16 Ohio Law. Abs. 734 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1934)
Simanek v. Nemetz
97 N.W. 508 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)
Richardson v. Washington & Costley Bros.
31 S.W. 614 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Merchants' & Mechanics' Savings Bank v. Lovejoy
55 N.W. 108 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1893)
First National Bank of Stevens Point v. Knowles
28 N.W. 225 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1886)
Funk v. Paul
24 N.W. 419 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Lamson v. Moffat
21 N.W. 62 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1884)
Lanyon v. Woodward
13 N.W. 863 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Mayer & Co. v. Taylor & Co.
69 Ala. 403 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Hunter v. Bosworth
43 Wis. 583 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Tomlinson v. Greenfield
31 Ark. 557 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1876)
Huling, Brockerhoff & Co. v. Cabell
9 W. Va. 522 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1876)
Apperson & Co. v. W. E. & C. L. Moore
30 Ark. 56 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1875)
Hutchinson, McChesney & Co. v. Ford
72 Ky. 318 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Wis. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comstock-v-scales-wis-1859.