48 Neb. 849 | Neb. | 1896
On September 8, 1888, the plaintiff: made a conditional sale of a mowing machine to J. W. Rose and E. P. Bridges. By the terms of the written contract of sale the title and ownership of the machine were expressly reserved, and remained vested in the seller until such time as a note given as a part of the purchase consideration should be paid in full by the buyers. The plaintiff did not file a copy of the written contract of sale in the office of the clerk of the county wherein the purchasers of the mower resided. October 24, 1889, a chattel mortgage was executed by J. W. Rose in favor of J. L. Callen, in which was included, together with other property, the mowing machine hereinbefore mentioned. During the month of October, 1890, the mortgagee took possession of the mortgaged property, and, it was alleged in plaintiff’s petition, converted it to his own use, contrary to the rights of plaintiff and to plaintiff’s damage. In an action of conversion in the district court of Sherman county the defendants were successful.
In the petition in error filed in this court it is assigned that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence; that the verdict was contrary to law; and that the trial judge erred in giving instruction numbered 2 of the instructions given on his own motion. The paragraph of the charge referred to was as follows: “The contract or conditional sale of the mowing machine to the witness Rose by the plaintiff, with the possession of the machine being in the hands of said Rose, is by our statute invalid as to the creditors, subsequent purchasers, or mortgagees of said Rose in good faith and without notice of such conditional sale, unless such instrument, or a copy thereof, is filed in the office of the county clerk,which the evidence shows conclusively was not done in this case.” The evidence established that the sale of the mower by plaintiff to Rose and Bridges was a conditional one, as pleaded; that subsequent to the sale a mortgage was executed and
Reversed and remanded.