Minnesota Supreme Court, 1878

Stein v. Munch

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 8, 1878 · Berry

24 Minn. 390; 1878 Minn. LEXIS 73 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

H. J. Horn, for appellants., Williams & Davidson, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1918, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Gallagher v. Rosenfield (Minn. 1891)
In re Essen (D. Minn. 1933)
Warner v. Hibler (Wash. 1928)
In re Frey (D. Minn. 1926)
Goldberg v. Brule Timber Co. (Minn. 1918)
Harris v. Spencer (Minn. 1915)
Schaupp v. Miller (District Court, D. Oregon 1913)
Madson v. Rutten (N.D. 1907)
Donohue v. Campbell (Minn. 1900)
Eckman & Vetsburg v. Munnerlyn (Fla. 1893)
Newell v. Wagness (N.D. 1890)
Dobyns v. Meyer (Mo. Ct. App. 1885)
Wooldridge v. Irving (United States Circuit Courts 1884)
Wells v. Langbein (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa 1884)
Mann v. Flower (Minn. 1879)

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

Berry, J.

The court below finds that at the time of the execution and delivery of the chattel mortgage involved in this action it was stipulated, by and between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, that the mortgagor should retain possession of the mortgaged property; that he should continue and carry on the retail drug business, with the stock of drugs, etc., *394(being the property mortgaged,) in his own name, and that bee should sell and dispose of the same in the usual course of business, and as his own. This stipulation made the mortgage fraudulent and void, as respected the mortgagor’s creditors. Horton v. Williams, 21 Minn. 187. As is further remarked in that case, the character of the instrument, as regards the rights of the mortgagor’s creditors, “depends on the intent with which it was made.” From this it follows-that it is not in the power of the mortgagee or his assigns-to remove the original taint of the mortgage, and make it good, by taking so much of the mortgaged property as has not been sold by the mortgagor into possession under and by virtue of the mortgage. Blakeslee v. Rossman, 44 Wis. 550; Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 513; Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. 85; Janvrin v. Fogg, 49 N. H. 340. This conclusion disposes of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — The Chief Justice, having been of counsel, took no part in this case.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.