Court Opinion

ID: 4928984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 01:04:42.067128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:23.730073
License: Public Domain

Wells, J., orally.
The instrument was a mortgage in the regular and usual form. Parol evidence was offered, to show that it was designed to be merely a pledge, and thereby control the written contract. Such evidence was clearly inadmissible.
The unconditional sale by Garland, though prior to the payday of the note, was a violation of the trust reposed in him *320by the plaintiff ; and gave to the plaintiff an instant right to reclaim the possession.
The instruction was that the sale or offer to sell by the defendant was evidence of a conversion. That fact when taken in connection with the proof of the demand and the nondelivery, constituted sufficient evidence of a conversion.

Exceptions overruled.