Meyer v. Bloom

Decided May 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1881-05-15

Hon. X. J. Pinball, Circuit Judge. STATEMENT. On the fourteenth of November, 1878, Meyer, as trustee for the creditors of Tomlinson, brought replevin against Bloom for four bales of cotton, before a Justice of the Peace of Jefferson county. Finding and judgment for Bloom, and appeal by Meyer to the Circuit Court.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““And, though the assignment of the (rent) note did not in law carry with it the lien, it still subsisted, and as the note was held by M. Hanf & Co. only as collateral security, the delivery of the cotton to them, in payment of it, was virtually a delivery and payment to Levy, the same in' effect as if Levy still held the note and the delivery and payment had been directly to him, and he had then turned the cotton over to them in discharge of his debt to them.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Cravens & Boren v. Barr

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1935

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

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 →

Harrison, J.

¶1The lien of the landlord was superior to •the mortgage, and it was in no way affected by it. Sevier v. Shaw, Barbour & Co., 25 Ark., 417; Tomlinson v. Greenfield, 31 Ark., 357; Watson v. Johnson et al, 33 Ark., 737; Buck v. Lee et al, 36 Ark., 525.

¶2Being entitled to have the cotton, raised on the demised premises, applied in payment of his rent, he had the right to receive payment in it. Watson v. Johnson et al, supra; Buck v. Lee et al, supra.

¶3And, though the assignment of the note did not in law •carry with it the lien, it still subsisted, and as the note was held by M. Hanf & Co. only as collateral security, the delivery of the cotton to them, in payment of it, was virtually •a .delivery and payment to Levy, the same in effect as if Levy still held the note and the delivery and payment had been directly to him, and he had then turned the cotton •over to them in discharge of his debt to them.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.