Rountree v. Chrisman & Co.
Rountree v. Chrisman & Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wade, C. J.'
The property levied upon was described in the mortgage fi. fa. as “one yellow mare mule 6 years old, about 15 hands high,” and the mortgage upon which this fi. fa. was based covered property described as “one yellow mare 6 year old, about 15 hand high,” but the mortgage recited, immediately following these words of description, that “it is expressly agreed that said J. N. Chrisman & Company do not warrant health, life, soundness, and work of said mule [italics *816 ours], only tlie title thereto, and which the said J. A. Moree hereby mortgages to the said.J. N. Chrisman & Company, to secure the pur-, chase price aforesaid.” The mortgagor sold the mortgaged property to a person who in turn sold it to the plaintiff in error, and the latter interposed a claim to it when it was levied upon under the mortgage fi. fa. as “one yellow mare mule, . . the property of J. A. Moree, by virtue of a mortgage fi. fa.,” etc. Held, that the mortgage, when considered as a whole, indicated the existence of a contract lien upon a yellow mare mule sufficiently to place all third persons upon constructive notice thereof; and the trial judge (there being no conflict in the evidence) , did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa., finding the property subject to the mortgage execution.
Decided September 13, 1917. Levy and claim; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. February 13, 1917. J. Z. Jackson, for plaintiff in error. Hendricks, Mills & Hendricks, contra.
Judgment affirmed.
George and Luke, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.