From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dufficy v. Shields

Supreme Court of California
Apr 20, 1883
63 Cal. 332 (Cal. 1883)

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         It does not appear how much was the purchase price of the furniture, and how much that of the other items of the property. As ninety-three hundred dollars was paid, it may be, for aught that appears, that the furniture debt was extinguished. But that is unimportant. The material fact is that the furniture was mortgaged to secure the purchase money of other property in addition to that of the furniture. This is the incurable infirmity in the mortgage which vitiates it.

         The provisions of the law, says our Supreme Court, " are plain, simple, and most imperative in their terms. The privilege of holding a lien upon certain kinds of personal property, in the possession of the mortgagor, is accorded to the mortgagee, in certain cases, upon the performance of certain conditions. These conditions are few, and easily performed, and there need be no difficulty, with ordinary care, in fully complying with them. But they are made essential to the validity of the mortgage." ( Gassner v. Patterson, 23 Cal. 300, 301; Civil Code, § 2955.)

         J. E. McElrath, and Clement, Osment & Clement, for Appellant.

         Mastick, Belcher & Mastick, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

         PER CURIAM.

         If the mortgage in question was made to secure the purchase money of anything besides one half of the upholstery and furniture used in the Brooklyn Hotel, it is void. (Civil Code, § 2955; Gassner v. Patterson, 23 Cal. 299.)

         By the mortgage, " the mortgagor mortgages to the mortgagee his interest, being an individual one half of all the effects and all belongings, of whatever nature or kind, of, in, and to the hotel in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, known as the Brooklyn Hotel, Nos. 210 and 212 Bush Street, together with all the furniture, carpets, beds and bedding, etc., etc.; also, the unexpired term of the lease of said premises, good will, and all and everything connected with or appertaining to said hotel, as security for the payment to him of the sum of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) gold coin, on the 24th day of June, A.D. 1877, being the balance due on the purchase money of said and foregoing interest in the effects and things above mentioned, in and to the Brooklyn Hotel."

         It is as clear as anything can be, from the loose manner in which the instrument is drafted, that the purchase money intended to be secured by it was the balance due of the purchase money of all the property included in the mortgage, which embraced other property than the upholstery and furniture used in the hotel.

         Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.


Summaries of

Dufficy v. Shields

Supreme Court of California
Apr 20, 1883
63 Cal. 332 (Cal. 1883)
Case details for

Dufficy v. Shields

Case Details

Full title:M. C. DUFFICY, RESPONDENT, v. A. M. SHIELDS ET AL., C. M. HITCHCOCK…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 20, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 332 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

San Francisco Breweries v. Schurtz

Even if some of the articles were the proper subject of a mortgage, yet, inasmuch as there was included…

Bank of Ukiah v. Moore

         The chattel mortgage set out in the complaint does not describe property belonging to either of the…