Dorland v. Bradley

Citations

• 66 Ill. 412

Syllabus

<p>1. Chattel mortgage&emdash;;foreclosure&emdash;whether valid as to creditors of mortgagor. On the day the debt secured by a chattel mortgage became due, the mortgagee placed the mortgage in the hands of a constable to foreclose, who took possession of the property on the same day, and placed it in the hands of a custodian, in a room in the house of the mortgagor, who surrendered the keys. The custodian remained in the room with the goods nighty and day until they were attached by a creditor of the mortgagor, except that he was absent not more than fifteen or twenty minutes, when the levy was made. At the time of the levy, the custodian had the keys with him, and had temporarily left a boy of the mortgagor in charge to watch the goods. It did not appear that this boy had ever before been in the possession or control of the goods while in his master’s employment: Held, that the temporary absence of the custodian, leaving the goods in charge of the boy, did not amount to a restoration of the possession to the mortgagor, so as to render the transaction fraudulent as to creditors, etc., and subject the properly to the levy.</p> <p>2. Evidence—hearsay. Where the custodian in the charge and possession of goods taken under a chattel mortgage left them for a few minutes only with a boy in the employment of the mortgagor, during which time the sheriff seized them under an attachment against the mortgagor, in an action of replevin by the mortgagee to recover possession, the court below admitted evidence of what the boy said when the levy was made: Held, that such declarations were hearsay, and not admissible, as the boy was a competent witness.</p>