Hay v. Parker
Hay v. Parker
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff’s right to maintain this fiction depends upon the validity of his mortgage. He has no other title, no other right of possession, than what his mortgage gives him. Is it valid? We think not. The stock of goods mortgaged included over fifteen hundred dollars worth of intoxicating liquors. The sale of liquors "directly or indirectly,” by one not licensed, is illegal. Act of 1858, c. 33, § 1. And a contract for the sale of a stock of goods, consisting in part only of intoxicating liquors, is wholly illegal, and no action can be maintained upon it. Ladd v. Dillingham, 34 Maine, 316.
But the plaintiff contends that a mortgage is not a sale, and cites Pollard v. Ins. Co., 42 Maine, 221. That was an insurance case, and the Court held that a mortgage is not such an alienation as will avoid the policy. But, in explanation of this decision, it must be remembered that it is a well settled rule of the law of insurance that a sale or alienation of the property avoids the policy, whether there is a proviso to that effect in the policy or not; but that the words sale and alienation, when thus used, have always been construed to mean a complete, absolute conveyance, such as leaves no insurable interest in the party. When, therefore, a policy of insurance, or an Act incorporating an insurance Company, is found to contain a proviso, that a sale or alienation of the property shall avoid the contract, we think the Court may very properly come to the conclusion that a complete and absolute conveyance is meant,-because such has always been the meaning attached to those terms when used in such a connection. But when the character of a
Our conclusion, therefore, is that the plaintiff’s mortgage is not valid, and, as he has no other title or right of possession to the property sued for than what his mortgage gives him, that this action cannot be maintained. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the officer has done anything or omitted to do anything which makes him a trespasser ab initio or not. He seems to have acted in good faith, and to have applied the proceeds of the property to the discharge of executions legally in his hands for collec
Exceptions overnded.
Efonsuit confirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Henry H. Hay versus George Parker
- Status
- Published