Harding & Miller v. Sharpe

Appellate Court of Illinois

Harding & Miller v. Sharpe

186 Ill. App. 532

DecidedMay 1, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 186 Ill. App. 532 (Harding & Miller v. Sharpe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harding & Miller v. Sharpe, 186 Ill. App. 532 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Sales, § 436*—when seller entitled to possession as against chattel mortgagee. Where a corporation sold a piano stool and scarf to certain individuals and received their obligation to pay therefor in instalments and on default in payment the seller returned to the purchasers their obligation and took possession of the property after the purchasers gave a third party a chattel mortgage but before it was recorded, held in replevin by the seller against the mortgagee, who had possession of the property, that a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was proper for the reason that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant at the time plaintiff took possession of the property had a lien thereon which was valid against other lien holders and that the defendant was not in a position to complain.

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

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Sales, § 436*—when seller entitled to possession as against chattel mortgagee. Where a corporation sold a piano stool and scarf to certain individuals and received their obligation to pay therefor in instalments and on default in payment the seller returned to the purchasers their obligation and took possession of the property after the purchasers gave a third party a chattel mortgage but before it was recorded, held in replevin by the seller against the mortgagee, who had possession of the property, that a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was proper for the reason that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant at the time plaintiff took possession of the property had a lien thereon which was valid against other lien holders and that the defendant was not in a position to complain.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 Ill. App. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-miller-v-sharpe-illappct-1914.