Case ID: ohio-st_31/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos Gardiner v. Charles E. Parmalee.
    1. The affidavit required by the statute to be entered on a chattel mortgage, need not be made in any particular form. If the affidavit contains the requisite facts, the form in which they are stated is immaterial.
    2. Where the affidavit refers to matters contained in the mortgage, the matters thus referred to are to be regarded as part of the affidavit.
    3. A mortgage was given to secure the mortgagee against his liability on a note as surety for the mortgagor; also, to secure the payment of a note held'by the mortgagee against a third person. The affidavit showed the nature and amount of the liability of the mortgagee as surety, as well as the amount due on the note held by him, and that the mortgage was executed in good faith to secure the payment of both notes : Held, That the affidavit is sufficient, although the statement “ in dollars and cents,” contained in the affidavit is the aggregate amount of both notes-
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Medina county.
    
      The original action was brought by the plaintiff in error to recover the possession of specific personal property. The plaintiff' claimed title under a chattel mortgage. The defendant relied for his right of possession on a levy made under an execution held by him as sheriff against the mortgagor.
    Upon the facts appearing in the record the plaintiff was entitled to recover, if the indorsement upon the mortgage complied with the requirements of the statute.
    The mortgage was executed to the plaintiff by one Wm. W. Gray, and contains the following condition: “ The condition of this mortgage is such, that whereas the said Amos Gardiner, at my solicitation and request, and under my promise to indemnify him against any loss whatever, signed a note given by Daniel W. Gray as principal, and myself (Wm. W. Gray) and Amos Gardiner as sureties to S. G. Barnard, for the sum of $1,000 with interest at eight per cent., said note being given on or about the 1st of April, 1874; and, whereas, said Wm. W. Gray promised said Gardiner that in case he would extend the time and not enforce collection on a certain note for $360, given by Daniel W. Gray, brother of said Wm. W. Gray (said note being dated on or about January 1, 1875, and given to said Gardiner), that he said Wm. W. Gray would guarantee the payment of said note, and in case said Gardiner sold and guaranteed said note, he said Wm. W. Gray would save said Gardiner harmless on said note.
    “Now if the said Wm. W. Gray, his heirs or assigns, shall well and truly pay the aforesaid notes and interest, at the time and in .the manner and form as set forth in said notes, and shall keep and perform the covenants and agreements above contained on his part to be kept and performed according to the true intent and meaning thereof, then this mortgage shall be void, otherwise not.”
    The following is the statement indorsed upon the mortgage:
    
      “State of Ohio, Medina, county, ss. :
    
    “Amos Gardiner, mortgagee, being duly sworn upon his oath says, that the within named, mortgagor, William W. Gray, promised to indemnify him, said Gardiner, as set forth in said mortgage, in the sum of $1,360 and interest, that said notes are just and unpaid; and that to secure the payment of the same, the within mortgage has been executed to him in good faith. Amos Gardiner,.”
    This statement was duly sworn to before the proper -officer as appears by the jurat.
    The case having been tried to the court, and the court being of opinion that the above statement entered on the mortgage did not comply with the requirements of the statute, ruled that the mortgage was void as against the creditors of the mortgagor, and rendered judgment for the defendant.
    On error the district court affirmed the judgment.
    The reversal of these judgments is asked, on the ground that the court erred in holding that the statement entered on the mortgage was insufficient.
    
      JR. C. Curtis, for the motion.
    
      G. W. Lewis and JBostwick $* Barnard, contra.
   White, C. J.

The question arises under the act of May 7, 1869, amending section two of the act to require mortgages or bills of sale to be deposited with township clerks. 66 Ohio L. 345.

So much of the section as relates to the question, is as follows: “ That the mortgagee, his agent, or attorney, . . . shall, in case the said instrument shall have been given to secure the payment of a sum of money only, enter thereon a true statement, in dollars and cents, of the amount of his claim, and that it is just and unpaid. And in case said instrument shall have been given to indemnify the mortgagee against a liability as surety for the mortgagor, shall enter thereon a true statement of such liability, and that said instrument was taken in good faith to indemnify against any loss that may result therefrom ; which statement shall, in either ease, be verified before some justice of the peace, or other officer authorized to administer oaths.”

It is no objection, under the statute, that the mortgage was given to secure a debt owing to the mortgagee; and, also, to indemnify him against his liability as surety of the mortgagor. Nor does the statute prescribe a particular form in which the statement on the mortgage must be made. If the statement contains the requisite facts, the form in which they are stated is immaterial.

The mortgage in the present case shows that the mortgagee signed the thousand dollar note in consideration of the mortgagor’s promise to indemnify him against any loss on account thereof. On that note, therefore, the mortgagee was the surety of the mortgagor.

The mortgage also shows that the note of $860 was owing directly to the mortgagee ; and that the mortgagor guaranteed its payment, in consideration of an extension of time.

The condition of the mortgage was, that the mortgagor should pay the notes, and perform the agreements contained in the mortgage.

The .affidavit indorsed on the mortgage states, that the mortgagor promised to indemnify the mortgagee, as set forth in the mortgage, in the sum of'$1,360, and interest, and that said notes are just and unpaid; also that the mortgage was executed in good faith, to secure the payment of he notes.

The reference to the mortgage in the affidavit, makes it, in effect, a part of the affidavit, and both are to be taken and read together. Thus considered, the affidavit shows the nature and extent of the liability of the mortgagee as surety of the mortgagor, and the nature and extent of his claim arising out of such liability, as well as upon the note held by him.

Looking to the manifest object of the statute, it seems to us its requirements have been, in the present case, substantially complied with.

It is contended, for the defendant in error, that the affidavit does not show that the mortgage "was taken in good faith.

The statement in the affidavit is, that the mortgage was executed to the mortgagee in good faith, to secure the payment of the notes. Good faith in the execution of the instrument implies good faith in its acceptance.-

Leave granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.