Secord v. Northwestern Tire 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 1931, 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
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Frey (D. Minn. 1926)
- In re De Luxe Oil Co. (D. Minn. 1940)
- Drew v. Feuer (Minn. 1931)
- In re Hanover Milling Co. (4th Cir. 1929)
- Hanson v. Citizens State Bank of Litchfield (Minn. 1925)
- Leonczak v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Co. (Minn. 1924)
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
Action in conversion. There were findings for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
On November 27, 1920, Anton Broms and others mortgaged the property, of which conversion is claimed, to the plaintiff. After-wards Broms and his associates sold to the defendant. The defendant took possession. 'There was a default in the mortgage. The plaintiff demanded possession. It was refused. If the mortgage was valid as against the defendant the plaintiff was entitled to possession and there was a conversion; otherwise there was not.
Broms and his associates at the time of the execution of the mortgage were doing business in Alexandria, ■ and the property mortgaged was a part of their stock of merchandise selling at retail. The mortgage contained this provision:
Also this provision:
“So long as the conditions of this mortgage are fulfilled, the undersigned [mortgagors] shall remain in peaceful possession of said property, agreeing in consideration thereof to keep such property in as good condition as it now is without expense to the mortgagee.” .
Only the findings and conclusions and judgment are before us. A mortgage of a stock of merchandise permitting the mortgagor to remain in possession and sell at retail and retain the proceeds of the sale without applying the proceeds on the mortgage debt is constructively fraudulent. Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 3885, and cases cited. The rule applies though the mortgagor agrees to pay the balance of the proceeds on the mortgage after defraying the expenses of keeping up the stock and the expenses of running the business. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Butchart, 67 Minn. 191, 69 N. W. 809, 64 Am. St. 408. We hold it to apply where the mortgagor’s agreement is to pay “at least the amount of the wholesale price of that which is sold” on the mortgage debt. Such a provision permits the evil which the law discourages by declaring it constructively fraudulent.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.