Case Name: Turner et al., Appellants, v. Langdon
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 85 Mo. 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: Turner et al., Appellants, v. Langdon.
Judges: Norton and Sherwood, JJ., dissent. The other judges concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 438–442

Head Matter:
Turner et al., Appellants, v. Langdon.
1. Béplevin: prima facie case. Where, in an action for the possession of personal property, the plaintiff makes proof of a chattel mortgage to him, valid on its face, the possession of the property by the mortgágeor, the record of the mortgage and the maturity of the debt the mortgage was given to secure, he makes out a prima facie case, and it is error for the court to direct a verdict for the-defendant.
2. Practice: question for jury. ’Where, in such action, the evidence leaves it doubtful whether or not the mortgage was recorded before the execution under which defendant claims was levied, the-question should be submitted to the jury.
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.—Hon. W. H„. Si-ierman, Judge.
Reversed.
Thomas & James fo£. appellants:
(1) The description of the property in the chattel mortgage is sufficient. Jones v. Richardson, 10 Metcalf (Mass.) 481; Hardin v. Coburn, 12 Metcalf (Mass.) 333; Jones on Chattel Mortgage, sec. 65. (2)- A mortgagee of personal property, after default, is regarded ás the absolute owner. 4 Kent 138; Williams v. Rover, 7 Mo. 556 ; Robertson v. Campbell, 8 Mo. 365; Id. 615. (3) A mortgagee of personal property may recover the possession thereof by replevin. Lacy v. Gibbony, 36 Mo. 320; Pace v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 393; Williamson v. GottschaTk,. 1 Mo. App. 425; Keclcv. Fisher, 58 Mo. 532. (4) If th& defendant claimed the property under an execution by virtue of being deputy constable, it devolved upon him to show: first, a valid judgment, and, second, a regular execution, and this could only be done by putting in evidence the judgment and execution. 2 Gfreenleaf on Evidence, sec. 629; Lee v. Lee, 21 Mo. 534; Ramsey v. Waters, 1 Mo. 406; Morrison r>. Lent, 1 Mo. 246; Wright v. Grocleett, 7 Mo. 128. (5) If the defendant had shown a valid judgment and execution, and that he was deputy constable, still the action was properly brought against him. Qriley et al. v. Vasel, 52 Mo. 445-449. (6) The instruction asked by defendant should not have been given, if by giving to the testimony every reasonable intendment in plaintiffs’ favor, drawing every conclusion from it, favorable to the plaintiffs, that a jury might justifiably have drawn, and conceding to it the greatest probative force to which, according to the law of evidence, it is entitled, it will warrant a verdict in their favor. Parles v. Ross, 11 Howard (H. S.) 373; Pauling v. United States, 4 Cranch 219; Pleasants v. Pant, 22 Wallace, 116 ; Finney r>. N. P. Ry. Go., Sup. Ct. Dakota, June 16, 1883 ; 16 N. W. Rep. 500 ; 17 Cent. Law Journal, 240 ; Kelly v. Han. & St. Joe Ry. Go., 70 Mo. 608; Charging the Jury, by Thompson, page 38, and authorities there cited. (7) The property actually taken by the sheriff under writ in this case from defendant is shown, by the evidence of Adams, to be the property described in the petition; the defendant, in fixing the value of the property, the possession of which he claimed, fixed the value of the goods in the store on the nineteenth day of April, 1881, thereby admitting that they were the goods taken from him by the sheriff under the writ in this case

Opinion:
Black, J.
The plaintiffs, Turner, Frazer, Parry and West, partners under the firm name of Turner, Frazer & Co., and Douglass and Wiehl, partners under the firm name of R. Douglass & Co., commenced this suit in replevin on the thirtieth of April, 1881, to recover certain personal property. The defendant answered that he was the legal owner of the property, and prayed judgment for a return thereof. The evidence shows that Richey was in possession of the property, and on the nineteenth of April, 1881, made a mortgage on the property to plaintiff to secure two debts, one due to each of said firms. The mortgage was recorded on the twenty-second of April, 1881, at half past five o'clock, p. m. Both debts were due when this suit was commenced.
Mr. Adams testified that on the twenty-second of April he inquired at the recorder's office and found no mortgage of record. lie then had the defendant, as deputy constable, to levy on the goods. He says he returned to the recorder's office on the same day, and found the mortgage recorded. There was evidence of. the value of the goods. On this evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The respondent has filed no abstract or brief, and hence his position with respect to this appeal is left to conjecture.
The chattel mortgage is not fraudulent on its face, and there was no sufficient evidence to direct a verdict on the ground of fraud. Proof of the possession of the property by Richey, and the recorded mortgage from him to the plaintiffs, and proof of the maturity of the debt, made a prima facie case for the plaintiffs. Mr. Adams, the witness, does not show, affirmatively, that the execution was levied before the mortgage was recorded. The execution was not read in evidence, nor does the record show when or by whom it was issued. The triers of fact might infer that the execution was levied before the mortgage was recorded, but this did not justify the court in assuming that to be the fact. This court has said where a "material fact is left in doubt, or there were inferences to be drawn from facts proved, the case, under proper instructions, should be submitted to the jury." Kelly v. Ry. Co., 70 Mo. 604-608.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Norton and Sherwood, JJ., dissent. The other judges concur.