Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0415-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gustave A. Oehler, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles Brand, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,046.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 20, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of replevin by Gustave A. Oehler, plaintiff, against Charles Brand, defendant, to recover certain chattels. From a judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, plaintiff brings error.
    Defendant executed to plaintiff a mortgage upon the goods sought to he replevied as security for payment of defendant’s promissory note to plaintiff for three hundred and sixty dollars. The note and mortgage were placed in escrow with a certain party who was to deliver same to plaintiff when so directed by both plaintiff and defendant. He delivered same to plaintiff without defendant’s knowledge, direction or consent.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Escrows, § 13
      
      —when delivery 'of note and mortgage held in escrow is ineffectual to pass title. Delivery of a note and chattel mortgage, held in escrow by a party, to the payee and grantee, contrary to the condition upon which such party held same, is ineffectual to pass title to such note and chattel mortgage to such payee and grantee.
    2. Escrows, § 7*—when chattel mortgage held in escrow becomes operative. A chattel mortgage held in escrow cannot become operative until all the conditions of the escrow agreement are complied with.
    Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry C. Levinson, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.