Gibbs v. Childs

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gibbs v. Childs

9 N.E. 3, 143 Mass. 103, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 27

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 3 (Gibbs v. Childs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibbs v. Childs, 9 N.E. 3, 143 Mass. 103, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 27 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, ,J.

There was no evidence that the plaintiffs ever had possession of the boat, or any title to it except as mortgagees under a mortgage given b.y William H. Chadwick on January 8, 1885, and there was no evidence that William H. Chadwick ever had possession of the boat, or any right or title to it. The plaintiffs can only recover upon their own title or right of possession. The execution and delivery of a mortgage of personal property are not evidence of title to the property included in the mortgage, as against a stranger. Such acts are not necessarily acts of dominion over the property itself. If there was no possession of the property by either the mortgagor or the mortgagees, the mortgage was, with respect to the defendant, res inter alios. The mortgage in this case is not an ancient document. If the execution, delivery, and recording of a mortgage were held to create a prima facie title to personal property against a person in possession, then a prima facie right to the property of another could be created by any one at will. Chaffee v. Blaisdell, 142 Mass. 588. See Perry v. Weeks, 137 Mass. 584.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Field, ,J.

There was no evidence that the plaintiffs ever had possession of the boat, or any title to it except as mortgagees under a mortgage given b.y William H. Chadwick on January 8, 1885, and there was no evidence that William H. Chadwick ever had possession of the boat, or any right or title to it. The plaintiffs can only recover upon their own title or right of possession. The execution and delivery of a mortgage of personal property are not evidence of title to the property included in the mortgage, as against a stranger. Such acts are not necessarily acts of dominion over the property itself. If there was no possession of the property by either the mortgagor or the mortgagees, the mortgage was, with respect to the defendant, res inter alios. The mortgage in this case is not an ancient document. If the execution, delivery, and recording of a mortgage were held to create a prima facie title to personal property against a person in possession, then a prima facie right to the property of another could be created by any one at will. Chaffee v. Blaisdell, 142 Mass. 588. See Perry v. Weeks, 137 Mass. 584.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.E. 3, 143 Mass. 103, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-childs-mass-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack