Crow, Hargadine & Co. v. Red River County Bank

Citations

• 52 Tex. 362
• 1879 Tex. LEXIS 148

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment creditor—Beceiver.— A mortgagee of personal property to secure a debt above the jurisdiction of the County Court, has the right to maintain an action in the District Court to protect bis interest, as against attachment creditors prosecuting snits in the County Court and levying upon the mortgaged goods. It was proper in the District Court to appoint a receiver to administer the goods subject to the orders of the court and the respective liens to be adjusted in the suit.</p> <p>2. Indorser—Mortgage.—That an indorser of the note secured by such mortgage is not alleged to have been insolvent, will not defeat tiie right to equitable interposition to protect the property mortgaged.</p> <p>3. Mortgage—Sufficient description.—The following description of property held sufficient in a mortgage, viz.: “All goods of whatever description which we have at Annona, Texas; also the stock of goods which we have at Dalby Springs, Bowie county, Texas.”</p> <p>4. Mortgage—Agency.—In this case the mortgagor remained in possession of the goods. The mortgage contained no stipulation for such possession, nor authority to the mortgagor to sell the goods. He, in fact, did sell, but as the agent of the mortgagees, and accounted to them for the proceeds: Held, That'the mortgage was not therefore void.</p> <p>5. Distinguished.—The case of Peiser v. Peticolas, 50 Tex., 633, distinguished from this case.</p> <p>6. Fraud.—Where a mortgagor remains in possession anti, as agent of the mortgagee, sells the goods mortgaged to secure a bona-jide debt, and applies the proceeds to the payment of the debt, the fact of the mortgagor remaining in possession would not, of itself, render the mortgage void. But such contracts should not be encouraged by courts.</p>