Stein v. Munch

24 Minn. 390, 1878 Minn. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 8, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 24 Minn. 390 (Stein v. Munch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stein v. Munch, 24 Minn. 390, 1878 Minn. LEXIS 73 (Mich. 1878).

Opinion

Berry, J.

The court below finds that at the time of the execution and delivery of the chattel mortgage involved in this action it was stipulated, by and between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, that the mortgagor should retain possession of the mortgaged property; that he should continue and carry on the retail drug business, with the stock of drugs, etc., [394]*394(being the property mortgaged,) in his own name, and that bee should sell and dispose of the same in the usual course of business, and as his own. This stipulation made the mortgage fraudulent and void, as respected the mortgagor’s creditors. Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn. 187. As is further remarked in that case, the character of the instrument, as regards the rights of the mortgagor’s creditors, “depends on the intent with which it was made.” From this it follows-that it is not in the power of the mortgagee or his assigns-to remove the original taint of the mortgage, and make it good, by taking so much of the mortgaged property as has not been sold by the mortgagor into possession under and by virtue of the mortgage. Blakeslee v. Rossman, 44 Wis. 550; Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 513; Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. 85; Janvrin v. Fogg, 49 N. H. 340. This conclusion disposes of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — The Chief Justice, having been of counsel, took no part in this case.

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

Related

In re Essen
2 F. Supp. 646 (D. Minnesota, 1933)
Warner v. Hibler
264 P. 423 (Washington Supreme Court, 1928)
In re Frey
15 F.2d 871 (D. Minnesota, 1926)
Goldberg v. Brule Timber Co.
168 N.W. 22 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)
Harris v. Spencer
153 N.W. 125 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
Schaupp v. Miller
206 F. 575 (D. Oregon, 1913)
Madson v. Rutten
113 N.W. 872 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1907)
Donohue v. Campbell
83 N.W. 469 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Jackson v. Kincaid
46 P. 587 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1896)
First National Bank v. Wittich
33 Fla. 681 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
Eckman & Vetsburg v. Munnerlyn
32 Fla. 367 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1893)
Gallagher v. Rosenfield
50 N.W. 696 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)
Newell v. Wagness
44 N.W. 1014 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1890)
Dobyns v. Meyer
20 Mo. App. 66 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Wooldridge v. Irving
23 F. 676 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Wells v. Langbein
20 F. 183 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1884)
Mann v. Flower
25 Minn. 500 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1879)
In re Burrows
4 F. Cas. 840 (D. Indiana, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Minn. 390, 1878 Minn. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-munch-minn-1878.