Case ID: f_262/html/0756-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HUNGER, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MURPHY v. BANK OF WAYNESBORO et al. SULLIVAN v. SAME.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    December 8, 1919.
    Rehearing Denied March 15, 1920.)
    Nos. 5221, 5273.
    Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah; Tillman D. Johnson, Judge.
    Suit by Raymond H. Ryan against the James Coal & Ice Company, Harry L. Sullivan, as administrator, the Bank of Waynesboro, Charles S. Murphy and others. From those portions of a decree adjudging certain funds in the hands of a receiver should be paid to the Bank of Waynesboro and T. D. Ryan, Charles S. Murphy and Harry L. Sullivan, as administrator, appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Joseph Chez, of Ogden, Utah (David L. Stine, of Ogden, Utah, on the brief) for appellant Murphy.
    S. T. Corn, of Ogden, Utah, for appellant Sullivan.
    J. D. Skeen, of Ogden, Utah (D. A. Skeen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the briefs), for appellees.
    
      Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and HUNGER and YOTTMANS, District Judges.
   HUNGER, District Judge.

These appeals are companions to the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro, 262 Fed. 754, — C. C. A. —, just decided, and seek a reversal of portions of tlie same decree. After the James Coal & lee Company had insialled the ice-malting machinery, which it had received under the title-retaining contract, it executed a note for borrowed money and secured it by a mortgage, and Murphy is the owner of the note and mortgage and seeks to have a decree that his lien extended to the ice-making machinery, and that it was superior to the seller’s claim under his contract.

Sullivan seeks the same relief, and as a basis therefor asserts that he has an interest in a mortgage executed by the James Coal & Ice Company after the ice-making machinery had been insialled. The decree of the lower court denied to appellants the relief sought by them. What has been said in the case of First National Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro necessarily determines these appeals and requires an affirmance of the decree.

Affirmed.