Meyer v. Davenport Elevator Co.

Citations

• 12 S.D. 172
• 80 N.W. 189
• 1899 S.D. LEXIS 100

Syllabus

<p>1. In actions at law, it is allowable only to determine on appeal whether there is substantial evidence which, with the inferances iairly deducible therefrom, go to sustain the verdict.</p> <p>2. Parol testimony is admissible to show that a written instrument, purporting- to bo a lease merely, was intended to operate as a mortg-age to secure payment of a debt.</p> <p>S. In an action by a mortgagee against a purchaser of mortgaged crops for conversion, it appeared that the mortgage covered all crops to he grown during 1895 and 1896 on the mortgagor’s land. In February, 1896, by instrument absolute on its face, the mortgagor leasod the premises for that year to secure payment of a debt due the lessee. The mortgagor continued in possession of the premises as before, furnishing his own teams, implements, and help necessary to cultivate, harvest, and market the crop. The lease was not recorded until long after the crop had been received and paid for by the defendant, who had actual notice of the mortgage before taking or paying for the crop, but had no knowledge of the lease. Held, that defendant was not a bona fl.de purchaser for value without notice, and that the mortgagee was therefore entitled to recover.</p>