Voss v. Slayton

Sixth Circuit

Voss v. Slayton

38 F.2d 475, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1930

DocketNo. 5449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 F.2d 475 (Voss v. Slayton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Voss v. Slayton, 38 F.2d 475, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2331 (6th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the adequacy of the refiling of a chattel mortgage, as required by section 8565 of the General Code of Ohio, in order to preserve the validity of lien as against creditors, purchasers, and subsequent mortgagees without notice. Section 8564 provides that before original filing of a chattel mortgage for this purpose, the mortgagee “must state thereon, under oath, the amount of the claim, and that it is just and unpaid,” Section 8565, however, omits provision that such statement shall be “thereon” and requires only that in order to preserve the lien of such mortgage, it, or a copy, must be refiled “together with a statement, verified as provided in section 8564,” and “a statement exhibiting the interest of the mortgagee in the property * *

Giving full effect to the doctrine of strict compliance with the provisions of these sections in avoidance of the mischief they were intended to prevent (Benedict v. Peters, 58 Ohio St. 527, 51 N. E. 37), we adopt the reasoning of Judge Sater in Columbus Merchandise Co. v. Kline (D. C.) 248 F. 296, and hold that the provisions of section 8565 are sufficiently complied with where the requisite statement is upon a separate sheet of paper but so firmly fastened to the original mortgage, or copy, as to be nondetaehable without necessarily leaving evidence of the fraud practiced by a substitution. See also Oglesbey v. National Box Board Co., 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. (N. S.) 61.

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the adequacy of the refiling of a chattel mortgage, as required by section 8565 of the General Code of Ohio, in order to preserve the validity of lien as against creditors, purchasers, and subsequent mortgagees without notice. Section 8564 provides that before original filing of a chattel mortgage for this purpose, the mortgagee “must state thereon, under oath, the amount of the claim, and that it is just and unpaid,” Section 8565, however, omits provision that such statement shall be “thereon” and requires only that in order to preserve the lien of such mortgage, it, or a copy, must be refiled “together with a statement, verified as provided in section 8564,” and “a statement exhibiting the interest of the mortgagee in the property * *

Giving full effect to the doctrine of strict compliance with the provisions of these sections in avoidance of the mischief they were intended to prevent (Benedict v. Peters, 58 Ohio St. 527, 51 N. E. 37), we adopt the reasoning of Judge Sater in Columbus Merchandise Co. v. Kline (D. C.) 248 F. 296, and hold that the provisions of section 8565 are sufficiently complied with where the requisite statement is upon a separate sheet of paper but so firmly fastened to the original mortgage, or copy, as to be nondetaehable without necessarily leaving evidence of the fraud practiced by a substitution. See also Oglesbey v. National Box Board Co., 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. (N. S.) 61.

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F.2d 475, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voss-v-slayton-ca6-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack