Strauss v. Austgen

Decided June 2, 1919

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1919-06-02

1. Chattel Mortgage — Description of Chattels. It is for the jury to determine whether the goods claimed under a chattel mortgage are in fact the goods described therein, and whether the description set down in the mortgage is sufficient to enable a third person to identify them. Plaintiff in an action of replevin demanded a camera, under a chattel mortgage executed by one Griebel. It was part of the only movie camera Griebel ever owned. The mortgage described the parties as “of the City and County of Denver.” Verdict for plaintiff and judgment accordingly. Supersedeas denied and judgment affirmed. The action being replevin, and the judgment for money only, the court below was directed to am^nd the judgment to conform to the statute.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1937

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Supersedeas Denied, Judgment Modified and Affirmed · Decided 1919-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Petition for Rehearing.

¶2The opinion in this case does not, as counsel assume, hold that it is within the province of a jury to construe a chattel mortgage. The objection now made that the mortgage was not admissible in evidence because the movie camera was not sufficiently described was not made in the trial court.

¶3That court, without objection by the defendant, instructed the jury as to the law which should govern in determining the issue tried. We held that the instruction was correct, and that the verdict under it was sustained by the evidence. •

¶4Rehearing denied.