Case Name: Agnes E. Tappehorn v. The G. Henshaw & Sons Company
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-07-20
Citations: 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: Agnes E. Tappehorn v. The G. Henshaw & Sons Company.
Judges: Smith,.P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 15
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
ERROR. IN THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Agnes E. Tappehorn v. The G. Henshaw & Sons Company.
Decided, July 20, 1912.
Evidence — Competent as to Agreement Between Husband.and Wifer— Where Affecting the Validity of the Chattel Mortgage in Suit.
It is error to exclude an agreement between husband and wife, whereby he transferred to his wife the chattel property upon which it is sought to foreclose the chattel mortgage in suit, which was executed by him after entering into said agreement.
'William Shepard and H. G. Busch,. for plaintiff in error.
E. B. Donohue and S. K. Henshaw, contra.
Smith,.P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.

Opinion:
It was error for the trial court to have excluded the agreement entered into between plaintiff in error and her husband, Frederick Tappehorn, relative to the settlement of their difficulties, and in which agreement the husband transferred to the plaintiff in error the furniture-claimed under the chattel mortgage set up in the case.
The evidence shows that the furniture in question was sold and charged on the books of the GK ITenshaw & Sons Company to Frederick Tappehorn in September, 1911, at which time no security was given for the purchase price thereof.
On December 1, 1911, $200 was paid on account of the purchase price.
On January 11, 1912, the agreement mentioned above was executed by Mr. and Mrs. Tappehorn; on January 16, 1912, five days after the execution of the above agreement, Mr. Tappehorn signed a mortgage covering the furniture in question, running to the defendant in error company; while this mortgage bears date of January 8th, yet it was not signed or delivered on that day, but upon the 16th of January.
We think under the state of facts in this case that the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error, as when Tappehorn undertook to mortgage the furniture to said company he had no title to the same, but had transferred the goods to his wife. The antedating of the mortgage to the date of the agreement between the husband and wife, we think is quite significant.
Judgment reversed.