TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Jones

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. LLOYD F. JONES, Appellee

Hartford Fire Ins. v. Jones, 252 P. 192 (Ariz. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Arizona Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 18, 1927
Docket
No. Civil No. 2487.
Judges
Lockwood, McALISTER, Ross
Citations
252 P. 19231 Ariz. 2891927 Ariz. LEXIS 214

Opinion of the Court — Lockwood

LOCKWOOD, J.

— Counsel for appellant in bis motion for rehearing urges upon us that section 4125, Revised Statutes of Arizona of 1913, Civil Code, was passed, not to protect the innocent purchaser of merchandise exposed to sale in the regular course of the business from taking it subject to a hidden and superior lien, hut rather to protect creditors of the owner of such merchandise against secret preferences given by means of a chattel mortgage on such merchandise.

On examining the authorities cited, we think the language used by us in the original opinion was too narrow when it attempted to state the purpose of section 4125, supra.

We believe on reconsideration that its purpose was to protect all innocent third parties whether they be creditors or ordinary purchasers of such merchandise. A mortgage, therefore, on such property would be void as against the rights of any innocent third parties. This, however, would not affect the principle laid down by us in the original opinion, to wit, that the mortgage is good as between the parties, and the motion for rehearing is therefore denied.

ROSS, O. J., and McALISTER, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1951: 119512026peak 1951 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barry v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.190 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1951)

Most recent

  1. Barry v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.190 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1951)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list