The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-05-07
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. ].

This is repevn for wagon, horse and harness valued at
5000 The here appeal points of law from the
District Court of Honolulu where Judgment rendered for
the plaintiff.
preliminary question raised by motion dismiss
the appeal the ground that the defendant had executed
the appeal bond Two other persons had executed it. The
statute Cv l. 143O) requires the appellant deposit
bond The appellant did deposit sufficient bond.
The statute does not require him to sign it himself See
Drouildt BOttne 10 Or. 1913 Lindsay Price, 80 Tex
$50; Johnson a. Johnson Oh. 1874; DAHL TjbbHUs,
Wash 261 Even it necessary for the appellant to join
the bond the failure do could be taken advantage
of motion dismiss the appeal now for Civ L. Sec 1850
No bill of exceptions appeal shall be dismissed for any in
formay nsucency of any bond unless upon of
party filing such bond comply with order of Judge
directing amendment of such bond after reasonable time
of not less than "a hours which shall be given for such purpose
such order has been made in this See Dahl Tbba,
supra, and Torn Snyder rs III. SO.
Now the merits The evidence shows that plaintiff
owned these chae that he sold them Cross who paid
25 account that Cross executed bill of sale of them back
plaintiff consideration of $158 due for the wagon and for
moneys advanced by plaintiff wages There
three witnesses plaintiff, his and Cross These all testify
that the understanding that the title plain
tiff until the chaes paid for Cross meanwhile have
only the possession Cross says also that he gave the bill of
security because he we'll Defendant put
evidence
Defendant contends bill to plain
tiff although absolute face, shown by the evidence
have been intended mortgage and therefore void
third parties because recorded Civ. L. 1853 Ellis
White aw 2O5 Lelehdit AkdRd, IIaw 538; Black
Castle, aw. 273 Jones' CHI N[tg Sec. 275. He contends
also that the evidence whole shows that the sale plain
tiff to Cross in fact absolute SALE conditional sale
testified or if it a conditional sale between the
parties yet third parties the condition that the should
remain in the plaintiff until payment should be considered
made merely security and therefore in the of
mortgage within the policy of the and therefore void
Ency of Law, 437 nOte FOSdcE q ScbGI 90 Z. S. 235.
Let that these contentious The ques-
ton would still remain whether the defendant third party
within the meaning of the statute 1t is disputed that the
plaintiff would be entitled but for the fact that the
alleged mortgage mortgages unrecoed 1t does
appear under what claim in what capacity the defendant held
the chatte He and the Marshal and understand
side the record that he held the goods against the
property of Cross but for the purposes of this he be
considered stranger trespasser 1t plain
weakness of the defendants title But the plaintiff has
title and the defendant has shown title. The question
merely whether the plaintiffs title be considered
the defendant under the because the mortgage
recorded in other words trespasser hird
party within the meaning of the statute? The statute provides
that chae mortgages shall be recorded &c. in default of
which such instrument shall be binding the derment of
third parties conclusive upon their rights and interests
Civ L. Sec 1853. It evident that this statute enacted
for the protection of persons who had gts nteress in
the property and for benefit of strangers
passers. Pratt Har1ow, Gray 379; johnson Jerc
80 Mo. 423; see also FOsdicb 4. SchaU sHp1U
The judgment appealed from IS affirmed
IT, T. De Bolt for plaintiff