Case Name: IDEAL LOAN OF NEW ORLEANS, INC. v. Moses W. JOHNSON
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1969-02-03
Citations: 218 So. 2d 634
Docket Number: No. 3294
Parties: IDEAL LOAN OF NEW ORLEANS, INC. v. Moses W. JOHNSON.
Judges: Before REGAN, YARRUT and RED-MANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 218
Pages: 634–637

Head Matter:
IDEAL LOAN OF NEW ORLEANS, INC. v. Moses W. JOHNSON.
No. 3294.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1969.
Sidney I. Goldman, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Henri Loridans, Bossier City, for defendant-appellee.
Before REGAN, YARRUT and RED-MANN, JJ.

Opinion:
YARRUT, Judge.
This is a suit for the balance due on a promissory note secured by a chattel mortgage. The Trial Judge dismissed Plaintiff's suit denying it: (1) The balance due on the note; and (2), recognition of its chattel mortgage and. privilege upon the movable property listed in the chattel mortgage. From this judgment Plaintiff has taken this appeal.
The Trial Judge correctly dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant in per-sonam for the balance due on the mortgage note because that obligation had been discharged in bankruptcy. However, as the Trustee in Bankruptcy disclaimed and abandoned the chattels which were the object of the chattel mortgage, the issue on appeal is whether or not Plaintiff's privilege in rem on these chattels should be recognized. At the trial Defendant claimed that he had not read the chattel mortgage when he signed it, and the part granting the chattel mortgage was blank when he signed it.
With regard to the first contention, it is well-established that one who signs a written instrument, or places his mark therein, is presumed to know its contents; and he cannot avoid its obligations merely by contending that he had not read it, or that it was not read and explained to him, or that he did not understand its provisions. St. Landry Loan Company v. Avie, La.App., 147 So.2d 72S; Fontenot v. Coreil, La.App., 2 So.2d 97; Upton v. Trilbilcock, 91 U.S. 45, 23 L.Ed. 203; Price v. Taylor, La.App., 139 So.2d 230; McTee & Co. v. Brown Funeral Home, La.App., 183 So. 558.
With regard to the second contention, because there was no proof of fraud, error or misrepresentation, the contract cannot be avoided because part of it was blank when signed. McTee & Co. v. Brown Funeral Home, supra.
However, the Trial Judge did not rely on either of these contentions in ruling that the chattel mortgage was invalid. Instead, he stated that the chattels were insufficiently described. The chattels involved were described as follows:
"ONE LIVING ROOM SET CONSISTING OF:
ONE GREEN SOFA TWO MATCHING CHAIRS
ONE END TABLE
ONE COFFEE TABLE
ONE BEDROOM SET CONSISTING OF:
ONE BED
ONE CHEST OF DRAWERS
ONE DRESSER
ONE NIGHT TABLE
ONE DINETTE SET WITH FOUR MATCHING CHAIRS
ONE REFRIGERATOR
ONE WASHING MACHINE
ONE DRYER
"TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER FURNITURE, FIXTURES, AND CONTENTS LOCATED ON THE PREMISES."
This description might be insufficient to put third parties on notice.
The manner in which chattels must be described is provided for in LSA-R.S. 9:5352:
"Every chattel mortgage shall be in writing and the obligation secured thereby shall be described and the exact sum secured thereby shall be stated, or, if the same is to secure future advances, then the maximum amount thereof, shall be stated, and there shall also be stated whether the same be payable on demand or at what fixed or determinable future time. A chattel mortgage granted on any mass or assemblage of things, including without limitation, stocks of merchandise in retail, wholesale or manufacturing establishments, permitted by R.S. 9:5351, whether owned at the time of execution of the mortgage or to be acquired thereafter and on such additions as may come from natural increase or otherwise, shall describe the same as all of a particular class or classes or grade or kind or type or species or dimensions or as a stock of merchandise to be kept at a certain location. In all other cases a full description of the property to be mortgaged shall be set forth so that it may be identified and its location shall be stated. As amended Acts 19S0, No. 516, § 1."
The object of the statute, relative to execution of chattel mortgages, is to prescribe the method by which a mortgage on chattels is made effective, not as between the parties to the contract, but as against all other persons without notice of the privilege thereby conferred upon the mortgagee. Southern Enterprises v. Foster, 203 La. 133, 13 So.2d 491; All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Fournier, La.App., 175 So.2d 707; Valley Securities Co. v. De Roussel, 16 La.App. 115, 133 So. 405.
Likewise, in other jurisdictions, as between the mortgagor and mortgagee, only a general description of the chattels is required. See 15 Am.Jur.2d § 55.
Furthermore, all descriptions must be construed in view of the general principle that it is presumed the mortgagor intended to confer some benefit on the mortgagee. 15 Am.Jur.2d § 54.
In view of the above principles, we find that the description of the household goods in the act of chattel mortgage is sufficient, except the last paragraph reading: "Together with all other furniture, fixtures, and contents located on the premises."
Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed regarding that part which denied Plaintiff's claim in personam for the balance still due on the chattel mortgage note; however, it is reversed regarding that part which denied the validity in rem of the chattel mortgage, except the items intended to be included in the paragraph above.
It is now decreed that Plaintiff's chattel mortgage and privilege upon the above-described movable property except as above stated, be and the same is recognized and made enforceable; all costs of this appeal to be paid by Defendant.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.