The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-02-24
A CAATTEL MORTGAGE.
JUICE YORK PASSES UPON AN
INTERESTING POINT.
The Delivery OF Key and the Conse
quencee That FoIIowsd-wL
Constitutes Legal Possess
sion OF Property.

court filed an opinion in q case involv-
ing some interesting law points.
It was in the case of I. X. Adlard VS..
l.. ID. Rogers, defendant.
On August 10, 1898, John w. Museel-
man, Ed NJ. DOYLE, Charles A. Croman
and Marvin 2. Gilmore were the owners
of certain personal property, which was
in use by them in the business of a
steam laundry, conducted in the city OF
Los Angeles, in said county.
On that day they executed q chattel
mortgage OF said property to plaintiff.
to secure an indebtedness of $500 due
! from them to plaintiff. The indebted
ness was for the purchase price of the
property, and evidenced by three prom
issory notes from said Musselman and
others to said Adlard, dated August Is,
1898, in the sums OF $3.50, 5000 and $150
respectively. One note OF $3.50 was pay
able in three months from date. The
5000 note was payable in six months
from date. The other $3.50 note was
payable in nine months from date. The
mortgage was duly recorded on August
! Is, 1868.
Thereafter, Musselman and Elmore
sold their interest in said property with
other property, and the laundry bust
ness, to r. Breese and Doyle, Oromsns
and Breese continued said laundry buei.
ness under the firm name of Peerless
Steam Laundry company"
Doyle, Cromans & Breese, as such CO.
partners, became indebted and unable
to pay their indebtedness and. on
November ID, 1898, made an assignment
to ]. B. Watkins in trust for their
creditors. Included in this assignment
10 their right, title and interest in lot 5,
block +, of the Thomas tract, in said
city, where their laundry business was
conducted. The assignment purports to
have been made under and by virtue
of the provisions of Title III, Division
~ of Part II of the Civil code !" but
not being made to the sheriff OF Los An
geles county it is not. for that reason, in
accordance with the code provisions re-
ferred to.
Watkins Immediately took possession
OF the property under the Assignment,
and continued the laundry business in
the interest of the creditors of the as
signors, until January IL, 1894, when,
it is contended by plaintiff, he trans
ferred the property described in the
mortgage to Henry P. Wilson, as agent
OF the mortgage.
The alleged transfer was made by
Watkins locking the building on said
lot, in which the other articles Of said
property were in use, and handing the
key to Mr.. Wilson in his (Mr. Wilson's)
Office. or some other place in Los An
geles city. Mr.. Wilson'S taking possess.
ion consisted of receiving the key and
posting notice OF his having taken
possession Of the property, on the out
side Of the front door Of the building.
The defendant, on the 18th OF Janu-
airy, 1894, as constable OF Los Angeles
township, under a writ Of attachment
issued from the Justices court of Los
Angeles township, in an action wherein
Los Angeles Oil Burning and Supply
company was plaintiff and Breese, Doyle
and Croman were defendants as part
ners under the name of the Peerless
steam laundry, levied upon all the
property described in said mortgage,
excepting one 1S-horsepower boiler and
one 8-horsepower engine, which last
named articles the said constable did
not levy upon or take The constable
retained possession Of the property lev,
led upon by him under said writ, and
now has the possession OF it.
Judge York in his opinion says: "As
between the mortgagors and mortgages
ton was valid as to all property therein
described. As against the attaching
creditors OF the mortgages, or their
successors in interest, the mortgage OF
the property in question was not valid
unless the mortgage took possession OF
the property before the levy of tho at
tachment or the accruing OF rights there
in by the creditors. (Glenn vs. Arnold,
56 CAL, 63l.)
The question, then, as to who had
possession OF said property at the time
of the attachment is the vital point in
this case.
Watkins took actual possession of the
property on the 18th day OF November,
1898, under the provisions OF the aseign-
ment to him. The creditors OF the as
eignors were not bound to respect this
assignment, because the same was not
made in accordance with the provisions
OF the civil code. The assignors, how
ever, were estopped by the assignment.
As to the assignors, the legal title to the
property was transferred to the assignee.
The creditors OF the assignors, however,
had the right to ignore the assignment
and attach the property as the property
OF the assignoTs.
But it 10 commended that the sssignors
had transferred the possession OF the
property to Wilson before the levy OF
the attachment. The plaintiff, prior to
the 1lth day OF January. 1894, mad in
structed Wilson to collect the mortgage
indebtedness and take whatever steps
were necessary TO make the collection.
! On Wilson's demand Watkins had de-
livered the key to the building contain
ing the property IN question, and Will
son retained the key and posted the no.
tice before referred to on the outside OF
the front door. The assignors did not
object or assent to transfer to
Wilson by Watkins. Tbs transfer to
| Watkins wssi valid as a tranefer
in trust for the benefit OF creditors. ex-
cept as against objection of creditors OF
the assignors. Watkins was not shown
to have been creditor OF the assignore
himself, and therefore he held the pos
session of the property in trust for the
creditors of the assignors at the time OF
the alleged transfer to Wilson. He had
no authority to transfer the property to
| Wilson without the ascent OF the credi-
tors whose trustee he was at the time
| OF the alleged transfer. The acts con-
stituting the alleged transfer to Wilson
would have been sufficient to make a
valid transfer, il Wilson had the right
to possession. If, on the other hand,
| Wilson had no right to the possession,
it can not be maintained by plaintiff as