Holmes v. Hall
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Booth v. Oliver (Mich. 1888)
- Stone v. Stone (Mich. 1947)
- Holda v. Glick (Mich. 1945)
- Schmalzriedt v. Titsworth (Mich. 1943)
- Sinka v. McKinnon (Mich. 1942)
- Crane v. Smith (Mich. 1928)
- John Naylon & Co. v. Christiansen Harness Mfg. Co. (6th Cir. 1908)
- Crockett v. Bearce (Mich. 1895)
- Marquam v. Sengfelder (Or. 1893)
- Campbell v. Roddy (N.J. 1888)
- Hurd v. Brown (Mich. 1877)
- McLean v. Klein (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1875)
- Dalton v. Laudahn (Mich. 1873)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The whole of this case depends upon the nature of the instrument, executed by Barstow & Nash, to Hall & Page, which was held by the court below to be a valid chattel mortgage.
The instrument bears a close resemblance to the one considered by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174,'*'and again in Hunt v. Rousmanier’s Adm. 1 Peters, 1. It was decided in the latter case, that even in equity, an instrument must stand as written, if deliberately adopted by the parties, although they mistook its legal intent; the mistake being one of law merely; and especially so when the rights of
It is not a pledge, because there was no possession given; and it is not a mortgage, for it does not purport to change, in any way, the title to the property, which was to remain throughout in the makers. It is nothing but a naked power, not coupled with any present interest, and which could never operate to give Hall & Page any rights in the property itself, until reduced to possession. The levy having ■ been made before this, and while the entire title was in the attachment debtors, must prevail over it.
The court below erred in holding the instrument valid as a mortgage, and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.