Conveyancing: Public Highway an Incumbrance
Michigan law review
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Apple Suit & Cloak Co., I98 Fed. 407. This amendment also gives the trustee the benefits of the state recording acts. In re Calhoun Supply Co., I89 Fed. 537. Thus it becomes a question of state law as to whether the defrauded vendor has a right to the goods which is superior to that of an attaching creditor, and what has been termed a conflict in the rule applied is nothing more than the result reached as to the rights of a defrauded vendor and an attaching creditor under such state law. In re Whatley Bros., I99 Fed. 362. The trustee is not an innocent purchaser and the attaching creditor cannot defeat the defrauded vendor. Richardson v. Vick, 145 S. W. 174; Halsey v. Diamond Distilleries Co., I9I Fed. 498; In re Bendall, 183 Fed. 816. See also 13 COL. LAW REV. 158. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-SUFFICIENCY OF WORDS USED TO PASS AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY.-T. purchased a stock of groceries and gave a mortgage thereon to secure the notes given for the purchase price. The mortgage contained a stipulation covering "all increase from said stock of whatever kind and nature." T. continued in business and sold all the old stock, and by replacing that sold with new stock soon had a stock of goods different from that originally covered. He made an assignment for benefit of creditors and the mortgagee claims priority over a general creditor who sold the new stock to the mortgagor. Held. Mortgage did not include the "additions and substitutions" of stock. In re Thompson (Iowa 1914), I45 N. W. 76. A mortgage of future property is generally void at law. In re Sentenne & Green Co., I20 Fed. 436; Jones v. Richardson, Io Met. 481; Ferguson v. Wilson, 122 Mich. 97; Deeley v. Dwight, 132 N. Y. 59, 18 L. R. A. 298; Griffith v. Douglass, 73 Me. 532, 40 Am. Rep. 395; Chapman v. Weimer, 4 0. St. 481. But in equity a mortgagee of after-acquired property is protected. Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story 630; Holroyd v. Marshall, Io H. L. Cas. I9I; Williams v. Briggs, II R. I. 476, 23 Am. R. 5I8; Des Moines Nat.