Davis v. Turner
Citations
- 120 F. 605
- 56 C.C.A. 669
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4510
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy — Debts Provable Against Partnership — Note Signed by Individual Partners.</p> <p>A note signed, by the individual members of a bankrupt partnership, although under seal, may be shown by extrinsic evidence to be in fact a partnership obligation, and where it is shown that it was so Intended, and was given for money lent to the firm and used in the firm business, it may be proved against the partnership estate in bankruptcy.</p> <p>2. Chattel Mortgages — Validity—Informality of Instrument.</p> <p>In general, no particular words are required to constitute a mortgage of personal property. . The most informal instruments will be regarded in law as chattel mortgages if they show that a sale was made as security, and in equity any sale of chattels as security for a debt is regarded as a mortgage, although the fact that such was the purpose of the sale be not expressed by the instrument of sale, if it be proved by evidence aliunde.</p> <p>3. Same — Mortgage of Partnership Property.</p> <p>A mortgage of partnership goods as security for a partnership debt is not invalid because signed by the partners individually, nor because of the addition of a seal to the individual names.</p> <p>4. Same — Sufficiency op Description.</p> <p>The description in a chattel mortgage, signed by a number of persons, on “all the goods in the store where they are doing business, in E. City, N. C.,” may be supplemented by parol evidence to identify the goods; and the mortgage is not void for indefiniteness of description where it was shown that the signers were associated in mercantile business as partners, and had but one place of business, which was in Elizabeth City, N. C., and that the stock of goods referred to was the one in their store at that place.</p> <p>6. Same — Sale of Goods by Mortgagor.</p> <p>A chattel mortgage given by a firm of merchants on their stock of goods is not void for fraud because the mortgagors remained in possession for a few weeks and carried on thei
Judges: Boyd
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. CogginFourth Circuit· 1935-06-19· cited 17×
- In re Stoddard Bros. Lumber Co.D. Idaho· 1909-03-20· cited 15×
- Mock v. StoddardNinth Circuit· 1910-03-21· cited 9×
- In Re George & John HurtS.D. California· 1955-02-23· cited 8×
- In re L. B. Weisenberger & Co.E.D. Kentucky· 1904-02-25· cited 5×
- In re JosephM.D. North Carolina· 1930-08-11· cited 4×
- Morris Plan Bank v. CookFourth Circuit· 1932-01-12· cited 4×
- In re C. H. Kendrick & Co.D. Vermont· 1915-10-12· cited 4×
- In re W. S. Kuhn & Co.W.D. Pennsylvania· 1917-05-11· cited 4×
- In re R. P. Brown & Co.S.D. Georgia· 1925-07-29· cited 3×
- In re Davis & TrousdaleS.D. Texas· 1922-04-28· cited 3×
- Mayer Bros. v. Van RheedenSeventh Circuit· 1924-01-22· cited 3×
- In re Nashville Laundry Co.M.D. Tennessee· 1917-01-29· cited 2×
- In re ClevelandE.D. North Carolina· 1956-12-06· cited 1×
- In re CulverD. Minnesota· 1909-12-01· cited 1×
- In re Empress PharmacyS.D. Iowa· 1916-01-18
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hubbell v. WoolfIndiana Supreme Court· 1860-12-05· cited 25×
- Buckner v. LeeSupreme Court of Georgia· 1850-02-15· cited 15×
- State v. . GarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1887-09-05· cited 10×
- State v. . LoganSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1888-02-05· cited 8×
- Puckett v. StokesTennessee Supreme Court· 1873-12-15· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.