Williams v. Hyde

57 N.W. 98, 98 Mich. 152, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 1019
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 N.W. 98 (Williams v. Hyde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Hyde, 57 N.W. 98, 98 Mich. 152, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 1019 (Mich. 1893).

Opinion

McGrath, J.

On the 17th day of December, 1891, one Erickson entered into a written agreement with one St. [153]*153Clair, whereby the former leased to the latter a certain shingle mill and outfit, and also gave to the latter a license to cut into shingles all the pine timber upon certain described lands; and the latter agreed to manufacture said timber into shingles, and to pay to the former certain specified prices per thousand for all shingles so manufactured. This agreement was delivered December 29, when St. Clair took possession, and was operating the same when this aotion was commenced. On April 25, 1892, St. Clair sold a quantity of the shingles so manufactured to defendants, who paid for the same in full. Erickson, after the execution of the agreement between himself and St. Clair, but before the delivery thereof, executed a mortgage to plaintiff upon the saw-mill and outfit, and also upon all the standing and down timber upon the same land, and plaintiff filed the same as a chattel mortgage, and now brings replevin against defendants for the shingles so sold to them as aforesaid. No actual notice To either St. Clair or defendants is shown. In the agreement between Erickson and St. Clair the lands are described as belonging to Erickson. The shingles were cut from, timber which was standing at the time- the mortgage to plaintiff was given.

The mortgage to plaintiff, so far as it relates to standing timber, was a mortgage of an interest in real estate (Russell v. Myers, 32 Mich. 522), and the filing thereof in the clerk’s office was notice to no one (Booth v. Oliver, 67 Mich. 664).

The judgment will not, therefore, be disturbed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.
221 N.W. 322 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
Morris v. Morris
177 N.W. 266 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Delaney v. Manshum
109 N.W. 1051 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 N.W. 98, 98 Mich. 152, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hyde-mich-1893.