Quinn v. Schmidt

Citations

• 91 Ill. 84

Syllabus

<p>1. Chattel mortgage—misdescription of date of note. A misdescription of the note secured, by a chattel mortgage as to its date, reciting it as of even date with the mortgage, when it in fact bears date prior thereto, can have no such effect as to vitiate the mortgage. It can have no other operation than its bearing upon the question of the good faith of the transaction.</p> <p>2. Same—evidence of the debt secured. In replevin for mortgaged chattels, or in trover for their value, by the mortgagee against a party levying upon them as the property of the mortgagor, when the mortgage fully describes the debt, it is not necessary to prove the contents of the note by the note itself to sustain the mortgage.</p> <p>3. Same—effect of an insecurity clause. Where a chattel mortgage provides for the possession of the property to remain with the mortgagor for a specified time, and contains a clause that if any writ from any court shall be levied upon the same, the debt shall become due and the mortgagee may elect to take possession of the property and sell, etc., the mortgagee may maintain replevin or trover for the property after demand for its possession from a party levying upon the same, and refusal to surrender it.</p>