Opinion · Michigan Supreme Court
Putnam v. Reynolds
Putnam v. Reynolds, 44 Mich. 113 (Mich. 1880)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Michigan Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
- Date
- 1880-06-23
- Topic
- general
Cooley, J. Putnam filed a bill in equity to foreclose a chattel mortgage given to him by the defendant Reynolds, and-which bore date April 9, 1879. It covered a stock of *115goods, and was given to secure a debt of $500. Permission was given to the mortgagor in it to remove the goods from Grand Eapids, where they were when the mortgage was given, to Stanton in Montcalm county, and the mortgagee •availed himself of this condition and made sale of the goods from time to time in the usual course of retail trade. Meantime the mortgage was not filed in the office of the city dark of Grand Eapids, or in the proper office at Stanton, and by reason thereof, it became, bj' the express terms of the statute (Comp.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Putnam v. Reynolds. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 21 opinions
Putnam filed a bill in equity to foreclose a chattel mortgage given to him by the defendant Reynolds, and-which bore date April 9, 1879. It covered a stock of
It is insisted on behalf of complainant that his mortgage, notwithstanding the failure to file it, was perfectly good as against the mortgagor, and that the latter could not, by a voluntary assignment, transfer a right to assail it which he did not himself possess. The assignee is not a purchaser for value, and not a creditor; and even creditors, it is said, cannot attack the mortgage except indirectly through a seizure of the property by attachment or other suitable process. This is doubtless true where the invalidity of the mortgage arises from the fraud of the mortgagor, but whether the same rule will apply when the mortgage was originally valid, but is made void by the neglect of the mortgagee, may well be questioned. It would be easy to suggest weighty considerations arising in such cases, but not existing in the case of a fraudulent mortgage, and which it might well be thought should control. But we do not think the question fairly arises in this ease.
As matter of law the mortgage of complainant was void
The decree must be reversed and the bill dismissed with costs of both courts. The defendant Fitzgerald will be at liberty to withdraw from court the proceeds of assigned property paid in by him.
The other Justices concurred.