Peterson

Peterson v. Sabin

Good Law
130 C.C.A. 608·214 F. 234·1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1137
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 1914No. 2354California1,154 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The sole question for decision in this case is whether a chattel mortgage, given by the bankrupt corporation while a going concern, and duly executed and recorded, covering all the property of the mortgágor in its designated place of business in the city of Portland, consisting of machinery, tools, equipment, supplies, office furniture, and fittings, and safe, and the good will of the business, and “any and all patents owned by it [the mortgagor], and contracts and royalties, and its leasehold interest in said premises known as No. 173 East Water Street, Portland, Oregon,” to secure certain money at the time borrowed of the mortgagee, the petitioner and appellant here, is void in toto because of the stipulated fact that the parties to the mortgage agreed, at the time of its execution, that the mortgagor “should continue to conduct its business of manufacturing and selling pumps at wholesale and retail, and that such pumps should be made out of materials then on hand and that the proceeds of such sales, together with the proceeds of the sale of such pumps as were on hand at the time the.mortgage was executed should be used by the mortgagor as it saw fit,” the stipulation further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.