Richardson v. End

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Richardson v. End

43 Wis. 316

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 43 Wis. 316 (Richardson v. End) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. End, 43 Wis. 316 (Wis. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, C. J.

There is some confusion in the charge of the court below, not very well explained by the record, as' to the sections of the statute applicable to the chattel mortgage of the appellant. Amongst others, section 5, ch. 107, R. S., appears to have been twice read to the jury, as applicable to it. The [318]*318appellant thereupon requested the court to instruct the jury that the word immediate in the section does not mean instantaneous, but must be construed in reference to the circumtances; that is, as we understand it, that immediate means within a reasonable time, in view of the particular facts. This instruction was refused; the court below charging the jury instead that the question of immediate delivery was one of fact for the jury under the circumstances.

We think that this was error. The appellant was entitled to a construction of the terms of the statute, which was certainly not a question of fact, as the refusal of the one instruction and the giving of the other seem to imply. And indeed the jury might well infer that the immediate delivery of the section, as applied to the appellant’s mortgage, was equivalent to instant delivery.

We shall not discuss the circumstances under which the possession of the mortgage was delayed from Saturday night to Monday morning. It is enough to say that there certainly is nothing in the record to warrant a conclusion of law, that the delay was unreasonable.

The word immediate, as used in the section, has had a defined and recognized legal meaning for over two centuries. “ The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet, to make good the deeds and intents of parties, it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing.” Pybus v. Mitford, 2 Lev., 75; The King v. Francis, Cases Temp. Hardw., 113; Thompson v. Gibson, 8 M. & W., 281; Burgess v. Boetefeur, 7 Man. & Gr., 481; Trask v. Ins. Co., 29 Pa. St., 198. See also Thomas v. Rewey, 36 Wis., 328. And the jury should have been so instructed. Without some such instruction, they could not intelligently apply the statute to the facts.

By the Cowrt. —The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial.

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

Ryan, C. J.

There is some confusion in the charge of the court below, not very well explained by the record, as' to the sections of the statute applicable to the chattel mortgage of the appellant. Amongst others, section 5, ch. 107, R. S., appears to have been twice read to the jury, as applicable to it. The [318]*318appellant thereupon requested the court to instruct the jury that the word immediate in the section does not mean instantaneous, but must be construed in reference to the circumtances; that is, as we understand it, that immediate means within a reasonable time, in view of the particular facts. This instruction was refused; the court below charging the jury instead that the question of immediate delivery was one of fact for the jury under the circumstances.

We think that this was error. The appellant was entitled to a construction of the terms of the statute, which was certainly not a question of fact, as the refusal of the one instruction and the giving of the other seem to imply. And indeed the jury might well infer that the immediate delivery of the section, as applied to the appellant’s mortgage, was equivalent to instant delivery.

We shall not discuss the circumstances under which the possession of the mortgage was delayed from Saturday night to Monday morning. It is enough to say that there certainly is nothing in the record to warrant a conclusion of law, that the delay was unreasonable.

The word immediate, as used in the section, has had a defined and recognized legal meaning for over two centuries. “ The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet, to make good the deeds and intents of parties, it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing.” Pybus v. Mitford, 2 Lev., 75; The King v. Francis, Cases Temp. Hardw., 113; Thompson v. Gibson, 8 M. & W., 281; Burgess v. Boetefeur, 7 Man. & Gr., 481; Trask v. Ins. Co., 29 Pa. St., 198. See also Thomas v. Rewey, 36 Wis., 328. And the jury should have been so instructed. Without some such instruction, they could not intelligently apply the statute to the facts.

By the Cowrt. —The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Wis. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-end-wis-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack