Case Name: The Singer Manufacturing Company v. Bohen
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1903-04
Citations: 31 Colo. 444
Docket Number: No. 4475
Parties: The Singer Manufacturing Company v. Bohen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 444–446

Head Matter:
[No. 4475.]
The Singer Manufacturing Company v. Bohen.
Chattel Mortgages — Leases — Replevin.
One who holds a sewing machine under a contract of lease from a sewing machine company cannot convey any title or right to'the machine hy chattel mortgage, and the lessor company may recover '.such machine from the mortgagee hy replevin.
Error to the County Court of Lake County.
Mr. R. H. Gilmore, for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Steele
delivered the opinion of the court.
Suit was brought by The Singer Manufacturing Company against P. W. Bohen to recover the possession of a .sewing machine. Upon the trial in the •county court plaintiff, in support of its claim, introduced a lease to one Katie Smith of the máchine in question, and the agent of the company testified that rent fixed by the lease had not been paid. The plaintiff claims the right to the possession of the machine under the terms of the lease. The defendant, in support of his claim, showed that Katie Smith had given him a chattel mortgage on the machine to secure a loan; that he took the mortgage in good faith and for a valuable consideration and without notice of the claim of the plaintiff; that he took possession of the machine under his chattel mortgage and claimed the right to hold it as security for his debt.
The machine was taken from the defendant by the constable on a writ of replevin. The judgment • was for the defendant. The court found that the defendant had a special -property in the machine, and ordered its return to the defendant. The company brings the case here by writ of error.
The lease set out in the record is to all intents and purposes the same as that passed upon in the case of Singer Manufacturing Company v. Converse, reported in 23 Colo. 247, where it was held that the instrument was a lease, and that the lessee had no authority to sell or convey title to the leased property, even to a bona- fide purchaser without notice of the lessor's right.
The decision on the Converse case is decisive of this, and the court therefore erred in ordering a return of the property to the defendant. The judgment is reversed. Reversed.