Case Name: W. T. GODMAN v. MARTIN OLSON, as Sheriff of Ramsey County, North Dakota
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1917-07-13
Citations: 38 N.D. 360
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. T. GODMAN v. MARTIN OLSON, as Sheriff of Ramsey County, North Dakota.
Judges: Robinson, J. I affirm original opinion.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 360–373

Head Matter:
W. T. GODMAN v. MARTIN OLSON, as Sheriff of Ramsey County, North Dakota.
(165 N. W. 515.)
Chattel mortgage — bill of sale — in the form of — properly filed — absence of fraud and deception — not void.
1. In this case it is held that a chattel mortgage in the form of a bill of sale is not void when duly made and filed, without fraud or deception, to secure an honest debt.
On Rehearing.
Transfer — made in fraud of creditors — question of fact — generally.
2. Whether a transfer is made in fraud of creditors is generally a question of fact.
Bill of sale — absolute on face — given as security only — for present indebtedness — future advances — not fraudulent — as a matter of law.
3. A bill of sale absolute on its face, but given to secure the payment of a present indebtedness and future advances, is not fraudulent as against creditors as a matter of law.
Possession of property — retention of — by vendor — not conclusive of fraud — merely presumptive.
4. Under § 7221, Compiled Laws of 1913, the retention of possession of personal property by the vendor is not conclusive, but merely presumptive, evidence of fraud in the transaction.
Unrecorded chattel mortgage — valid as to persons with actual knowledge.
5. An unrecorded chattel mortgage is valid as against all persons who have actual knowledge thereof.
Bill of sale — vendee — other security for debt — fact of — not defense.
6. The fact that the vendee in a bill of sale, absolute on its face, but given to secure an indebtedness, had other security sufficient to satisfy his demand, is not available as a defense in an action brought by the vendee against an officer who, in disregard and defiance of the vendee’s special interest, levies upon and sells some of the chattels covered by such bill of sale.
Opinion filed July 13, 1917.
Rehearing denied November 16, 1917.
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Honorable C. W. Buttz, Judge.
Affirmed.
B. Goer (Cowan & Adamson and H. 8. Blood, of counsel), for appellant.
Henry G. Middaugh and Bollo F. Hunt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Robinson, J.
This is an action to recover from the sheriff the value of two horses levied and sold under an execution against Richard Godman, the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $180. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, and defendant appeals.
The defense was that the horses were duly taken and sold under a writ of attachment and an execution issued from a justice court in an action by Emil Plath against Richard Godman, and that the bill of sale was in fraud of creditors and that the horses were in fact the property of Richard Godman, the defendant in the execution.
The bill of sale was in regular form. It was made to the plaintiff by Richard Godman. It was signed by two witnesses. It was dated, acknowledged, and filed in the office of the proper register of deeds on October 21, 1915. It was made in good faith to-secure an actual bona fide debt of about $1,500. It was made subject to a prior mortgage on the same property dated March 25, 1915, for $418.50, due October 1, 1915, and on this the plaintiff had to pay $446.55; he paid hired help $125 and some other debts.
Before the attachment was issued the plaintiff conversed with Emil Plath concerning the bill of sale, and told him it was made to secure $1,500 due and owing to him, and that on a sale of the property any surplus would be paid to the creditors of Richard Godman.
When Emil Plath obtained his judgment he had a legal right to pay the plaintiff and to step into his shoes, but it would have been a losing venture in case Richard Godman had claimed his exemptions.
As the jury found and as the trial judge found, it is clear that the bill of sale was in fact a mortgage, and it ivas made in good faith to secure an honest debt, and Emil Plath had full notice of the facts. He was not in any manner deceived, and he had a perfect legal right to treat the bill of sale in the same manner as if it were in the regular and usual form of a mortgage. The form did not in any manner de ceive or mislead him. The form was adopted at the suggestion, and advice of a banker who drafted the paper to secure-the debt. Under the statute this bill of sale was in truth a mortgage, and as such it was duly made and filéd. Comp. Laws, § 6725, 6727, 6729.
This is no case for hairsplitting and it really involves no question of law or of fact. Even if it were not free from doubt, the court should hesitate to reverse the judgment of the trial court and a jury of twelve men, and to award a new trial on a matter of $180. There should be an end to petty litigation.
Judgment affirmed.