¶1There having been no delivery of the horse, and no registration of the mortgage, the plaintiff has not established his title to the property, so as to maintain this action against the defendant, who claims under a sale and delivery, and is not a party to the mortgage. The provision in the Rev. Sts. c. 74, § 5, conforms, in terms, to St. 1832, c. 157, § 1, under which the court decided the case of Bullock v, Williams, 16 Pick. 33. That case proceeded on the ground that, by force of the statute, registration was sufficient to give effect to a mortgage of personal property capable of being identified by a written description. But it seems to be distinctly implied, from the case, that without either possession or registration, the mortgage could not be valid, either by common law or by statute. A new trial will be ordered, unless the plaintiff elects to become nonsuit.
54 Mass. 304
Travis v. Bishop
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 15, 1847
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1847-10-15
Trover for a horse. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Merrick, J. the plaintiff gave evidence that the horse was conveyed to him, by Seth C. Hawes, by a mortgage dated January 11th 1845, (but which was never recorded,) as security for a debt due from said Hawes to him. He also gave evidence tending to show that the defendant, who purchased the horse of said Hawes, after the making of the mortgage, was fully informed thereof, and of its continued existence.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1951
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1847-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →