Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 Mass. 435

Williams v. Nichols

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 6, 1877

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1877-01-06

Replevin of certain articles of personal property. Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., without a jury, who found for the plaintiff, and allowed a bill of exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The statute provides that mortgages of personal property shall be recorded on the records of the city or town wherein the mortgagor resides, and on the records of the city or town in which he principally transacts his business; and that, `unless a mortgage is so recorded, or the property mortgaged is delivered to and retained by the mortgagee, it shall not be valid against any person other than the parties thereto.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 80 - New Bedford Motor Car Co., Inc. v. MacIntosh

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-01-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1939

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

301877188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Morton, J.

¶1It appears by the findings of the justice, who presided at the trial in the Superior Court, that, in January, 1873, Shaw & Bruce owed the plaintiff $604, and then gave him a bill of certain goods, intending it as security for the debt. This is erroneously called in the bill of exceptions a bill of sale. It is in fact a common bill of parcels. The goods were not delivered to the plaintiff, and never came into his possession. Shaw & Bruce went into bankruptcy on January 6, 1874, and the defendant was appointed their assignee, and took possession of the property. The bill of parcels was recorded in the office of the city clerk of Salem on December 26,1873. The presiding judge *436found that the bill of parcels was in effect a mortgage, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff.

¶2We are of opinion that upon the facts found the plaintiff cannot maintain his action. The statute provides that mortgages of personal property shall be recorded on the records of the city or town where the mortgagor resides, and on the records of the city or town in which he principally transacts his business; and that, “ unless a mortgage is so recorded, or the property mortgaged is delivered to and retained by the mortgagee, it shall not be valid against any person other than the parties thereto.” Gen. Sts. e. 151, § 1. Without discussing the question how far and for what purposes a mortgage of personal property may be proved by paroi testimony, it is decisive of this case that an oral mortgage, if one is attempted to be made, is in its nature such that it cannot be recorded under the statute.

¶3The plaintiff has not recorded a mortgage in this case. Recording a bill of parcels does not make it a mortgage, nor answer the requirements of the statute. It is doubtful if the transaction in this case can be held to amount to anything more than a pledge, or an attempt to pledge. Walker v. Staples, 5 Allen, 34. But, if the plaintiff can be regarded as a mortgagee, the property mortgaged has not been delivered to and retained by him, and his mortgage has not been recorded. It is therefore, under the statute, invalid against any person other than the narties thereto. Exceptions sustained.

/121/mass/435 · .json · Public domain