89 Me. 77 | Me. | 1896
The cows replevied in this action were once the property of Frank N. Weeks, under whom both parties claim. While owning the cows Weeks gave to C. A. Hill the paper dated
The plaintiff argues first, that the description of the cows in the Hill bill of sale is too indefinite to be a notice to subsequent purchasers. Not so. The bill of sale includes all the cows in the vendor’s stable with four cows excepted. This is sufficiently comprehensive to give information to a subsequent purchaser of cows from Weeks'that they were incumbered.
The plaintiff argues again, that the condition is too vaguely expressed to inform an intending purchaser of what was to be done to' extinguish the lien. We think not. Mr. Hill’s liability as surety upon the replevin bond was definite, and the amount could be ascertained whenever the liability became fixed.
The plaintiff argues lastly, that by the terms of the bill of sale the mortgagee’s lien was to expire at the close of the following June term of the Superior Court in Waterville. This construction is much too narrow. It defeats the very purpose of the instrument. The evident meaning of the whole is that Mr. Hill shall have a lien upon the property until his liability is extinguished or made good. It was supposed that this would be done at the following June term, but no judgment was rendered then or since. The liability and the lien continue.
Exceptions overruled.
