Holmes v. Hall

Michigan Supreme Court

Holmes v. Hall

8 Mich. 66, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 11

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 8 Mich. 66 (Holmes v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holmes v. Hall, 8 Mich. 66, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 11 (Mich. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell J.:

The whole of this case depends upon the nature of the instrument, executed by Barstow & Nash, to Hall & Page, which was held by the court below to be a valid chattel mortgage.

The instrument bears a close resemblance to the one considered by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174,'*'and again in Hunt v. Rousmanier’s Adm. 1 Peters, 1. It was decided in the latter case, that even in equity, an instrument must stand as written, if deliberately adopted by the parties, although they mistook its legal intent; the mistake being one of law merely; and especially so when the rights of [70]*70creditors intervene. We are bound therefore to look for the intent of this agreement to the paper itself, and not beyond it.

It is not a pledge, because there was no possession given; and it is not a mortgage, for it does not purport to change, in any way, the title to the property, which was to remain throughout in the makers. It is nothing but a naked power, not coupled with any present interest, and which could never operate to give Hall & Page any rights in the property itself, until reduced to possession. The levy having ■ been made before this, and while the entire title was in the attachment debtors, must prevail over it.

The court below erred in holding the instrument valid as a mortgage, and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell J.:

The whole of this case depends upon the nature of the instrument, executed by Barstow & Nash, to Hall & Page, which was held by the court below to be a valid chattel mortgage.

The instrument bears a close resemblance to the one considered by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174,'*'and again in Hunt v. Rousmanier’s Adm. 1 Peters, 1. It was decided in the latter case, that even in equity, an instrument must stand as written, if deliberately adopted by the parties, although they mistook its legal intent; the mistake being one of law merely; and especially so when the rights of [70]*70creditors intervene. We are bound therefore to look for the intent of this agreement to the paper itself, and not beyond it.

It is not a pledge, because there was no possession given; and it is not a mortgage, for it does not purport to change, in any way, the title to the property, which was to remain throughout in the makers. It is nothing but a naked power, not coupled with any present interest, and which could never operate to give Hall & Page any rights in the property itself, until reduced to possession. The levy having ■ been made before this, and while the entire title was in the attachment debtors, must prevail over it.

The court below erred in holding the instrument valid as a mortgage, and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Mich. 66, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-hall-mich-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack