Murphy v. Bank of Waynesboro

Eighth Circuit

Murphy v. Bank of Waynesboro

262 F. 756, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1919

DocketNos. 5221, 5273

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F. 756 (Murphy v. Bank of Waynesboro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Bank of Waynesboro, 262 F. 756, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972 (8th Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNGER, District Judge.

These appeals are companions to the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro, 262 Fed. 754, — C. C. A. —, just decided, and seek a reversal of portions of tlie same decree. After the James Coal & lee Company had insialled the ice-malting machinery, which it had received under the title-retaining contract, it executed a note for borrowed money and secured it by a mortgage, and Murphy is the owner of the note and mortgage and seeks to have a decree that his lien extended to the ice-making machinery, and that it was superior to the seller’s claim under his contract.

Sullivan seeks the same relief, and as a basis therefor asserts that he has an interest in a mortgage executed by the James Coal & Ice Company after the ice-making machinery had been insialled. The decree of the lower court denied to appellants the relief sought by them. What has been said in the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro necessarily determines these appeals and requires an affirmance of the decree.

Affirmed.

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

HUNGER, District Judge.

These appeals are companions to the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro, 262 Fed. 754, — C. C. A. —, just decided, and seek a reversal of portions of tlie same decree. After the James Coal & lee Company had insialled the ice-malting machinery, which it had received under the title-retaining contract, it executed a note for borrowed money and secured it by a mortgage, and Murphy is the owner of the note and mortgage and seeks to have a decree that his lien extended to the ice-making machinery, and that it was superior to the seller’s claim under his contract.

Sullivan seeks the same relief, and as a basis therefor asserts that he has an interest in a mortgage executed by the James Coal & Ice Company after the ice-making machinery had been insialled. The decree of the lower court denied to appellants the relief sought by them. What has been said in the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro necessarily determines these appeals and requires an affirmance of the decree.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. 756, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bank-of-waynesboro-ca8-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack