Beer v. Aultman-Taylor Co.
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 1938, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- National Cash Register Co. v. Ness (Minn. 1938)
- Kettwig v. Aero Investment Co. (Minn. 1934)
- Intertype Corporation v. Pulver (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1932)
- Guaranty Securities Co. v. Exchange State Bank (Minn. 1921)
- Little v. Widener (Mo. Ct. App. 1930)
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 notes and the chattel mortgage were made by plaintiff at the same time, and as parts of one transaction. They are, therefore, to be read together. So read, they evidence a contract, by the terms of which “The Aultman-Taylor Machine” (as it is styled in the notes) was distinctly recognized by both parties as the property of the plaintiff, and any inference to the contrary which might be drawn from the clause in the notes providing that the title to the machine shall remain in the defendant until the notes are fully paid, is cut off. Hence, the case is not parallel to Third Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 25 Minn. 530, or to Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 27 Minn. 495. The machine was taken from the plaintiff and sold upon the chattel mortgage, which was in accordance with the foregoing construction of the transaction between the parties. For any balance of the notes which the chattel mortgage sale left undischarged, the plaintiff remained liable, and the defendant could, as a matter of course, resort to the real-estate mortgage to collect it.
Judgment reversed.
Dickinson, J., because of illness, took no part in this decision.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.