Horne v. Hanson

44 A. 292, 68 N.H. 201
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 A. 292 (Horne v. Hanson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Horne v. Hanson, 44 A. 292, 68 N.H. 201 (N.H. 1894).

Opinion

Smith, J.

Hanson had a valid mortgage, duly recorded, from Thomas Horne of the grass on the Batchelder place, which Horne agreed to cut and put into the barn in good condition, without expense to Hanson. The grass when cut and made into hay was' commingled by Horne with other hay grown on the French place. He then conveyed to the plaintiff the hay thus commingled. The mortgage lien was not destroyed by the act of the mortgagor in commingling the mortgaged property with his other hay; and the. plaintiff by her purchase took the hay subject to the Hanson mortgage.

The rightsjof parties in a case of confusion of goods may be exjaressed as follows: “If the goods are accidentally mingled, and they are of such character that they can be distinguished *203 and separated, there will be no change of property, but each is entitled to his own; if they are of such a nature that they cannot be identified and separated, as corn, oil, wine, hay, etc., then each is entitled to his aliquot part of the entire quantity.” Moore v. Bowman, 47 N. H. 494, 501. As the commingling was not accidental on the part of the plaintiff’s vendor, this statement of the law is sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff.

Hanson before foreclosing requested the plaintiff to show him the hay cut from the Batchelder place. She declined, denying that Thomas Horne had any hay in the barn. Hanson thereupon, in the exercise of his legal right of foreclosure, sold enough of the hay in one of the bays to satisfy his mortgage debt and expenses of foreclosure. In the bay there were between three and four tons cut on the Batchelder place. Hanson sold three and one half tons from that bay, practically the same quantity that was cut, and carried away three tons. The hay in the bay was all of the same quality. As he took no more than his aliquot part (in fact one half ton less), it follows that the plaintiff has no legal grievance against him by reason of the foreclosure proceedings.

Exceptions overruled.

"Wallace, L, did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Miller v. Bank of Indianola
107 So. 548 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
Ayre v. Hixson
98 P. 515 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
In re Poppleton's Estate
97 P. 138 (Utah Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A. 292, 68 N.H. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horne-v-hanson-nh-1894.