{ "id": 1407977, "name": "Bonner v. Stroud Brothers' Gin", "name_abbreviation": "Bonner v. Stroud Brothers' Gin", "decision_date": "1927-01-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "569", "last_page": "574", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "172 Ark. 569" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "10 S. W. 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721728 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Pac. 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Okla. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla.", "case_ids": [ 6239787 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla/102/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 P., 734", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Okla. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla.", "case_ids": [ 6359389 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla/110/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S, W. 910", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 Ark. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1382175 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/164/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 S. W. 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ark. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1568093 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/137/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S. W. 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 Ark. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1364116 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/152/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 S. W. 379", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 Ark. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1388525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/161/0614-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 500, "char_count": 11217, "ocr_confidence": 0.514, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.431403558356252e-08, "percentile": 0.48408710314771247 }, "sha256": "9cae92657a57a52fd181384f8d59e28570c4a4cfd6260b59aa8752772128c7fe", "simhash": "1:6e657c5213dca2c3", "word_count": 1929 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:50:04.452939+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bonner v. Stroud Brothers' Gin." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after stating the facts). At the outset it may be stated that all the mortgages show that the cotton was to be planted and grown in the State of Oklahoma, and, by their terms, show that the contracts which they evidence were to be performed there. Hence in construing the mortgages and in determining their priority we must be governed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Tallmam v. Union Loan & Trust Co., 161 Ark. 614, 256 S. W. 379; Guardian Life Insurance Co. v. Dixon, 152 Ark. 597, 240 S. W. 25; Wilson v. Todhunter, 137 Ark. 80, 207 S. W. 221; and Nelson v. Forbes & Sons, 164 Ark. 460, 261 S, W. 910.\nThe first reliance by counsel for the plaintiff for a reversal of the judgment is that, although the two mortgages transferred to Mamie Cleaver were executed before the mortgage on the same property to the plaintiff Bonner, the acknowledgments to these two .mortgages were so defective as to render them invalid as far as the rights of third persons are concerned. The acknowledgments to the two mortgages given by Hill to the Williams Horse & Mule Company and transferred by it to Mamie Cleaver are set out in our statement of facts, and need not be repeated here. A reading of the acknowledgments copied in our statement of facts will show that they are valid under the laws of Oklahoma. The body of each mortgage is in the usual form, reciting that it\nis a mortgage, and is signed 'by the mortgagor. It is true that the certificate of acknowledgment is in the form of an affidavit, but the signature of the mortgagor to the mortgage is identified, and the acknowledgment to each mortgage shows that Hill stated that he was the sole and exclusive owner of all the property described in the chattel mortgage, and that every representation in the mortgage was true, and that the mortgage was executed for the purpose of securing a loan of money on the property. An acknowledgment in all essential respects the same as the one in the case at bar has been held valid by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. First National Bank of Buffalo v. Devore, 110 Okla. 283, 234 P., 734.\nIt is next insisted that the judgment should be reversed because the description of the property in the mortgages to the Williams Horse & Mule Company, which were transferred to Mamie Cleaver, are void for uncertainty of description of the cotton mortgaged. We do not agree with counsel in this contention. In Wichita Mill & Elevator Co. v. Farmers\u2019 State Bank, 102 Okla. 83, 226 Pac. 870, it was held that a description in a chattel mortgage which is sufficient to put a third person upon inquiry, which, when pursued, will enable him to ascertain the property intended to be included in said mortgage, is good, and parol evidence is admissible in order to show the particular property intended to be covered by the description in the mortgage. In Watson v. Pugh, 51 Ark. 218, 10 S. W. 493, it was held that a mortgage which described the property conveyed as \u2018 \u2018 eight bales of cotton weighing 500 pounds each, of the crop\u201d which the mortgagor should raise in a designated locality, is not void for uncertainty, where the whole crop did not amount to eight bales. See also Jones on Chattel Mortgages, 5 ed., \u00a7\u00a7 55 and 55a.\nIt will be observed from our statement of facts that the mortgage of Hill to the Williams Horse & Mule Company to secure the $193 indebtedness describes the cotton as 30 acres to be planted and grown by Hill on Mamie Cleaver\u2019s land in Poteau Bottom, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. In the mortgage to secure the $50\u2019 indebtedness the description is 15 acres of cotton to be planted and grown by Hill on Mamie Cleaver\u2019s farm in Poteau Bottom, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The only element of uncertainty in the mortgage is that the mortgagor might plant and grow on Mrs. Mamie Cleaver\u2019s farm 45 acres of cotton; in which event, no separation' having been made by the parties, it could not be ascertained what particular cotton was covered by each mortgage. According to the testimony of Mamie Cleaver, Hill planted 40 acres of cotton, but about 25 acres of it were overflowed and grew up in weeds and bushes. Hill did not work this part of his crop of cotton. He only worked 15 acres of the amount planted, and the cotton in controversy was grown on the 15 acres.- Each mortgage provides that the cotton is to be planted and grown on Mamie Cleaver\u2019s farm. That part of it which provides that the crop is to be grown on the Mamie Cleaver farm is as much a part of the description as that part referring to the planting of the cotton. When it was shown that the entire crop of cotton thus planted-and grown and subject to the description was not more than 15 acres, the description became definite and certain; hence there was no occasion for its separation from a larger mass.\nThe record shows that the mortgage to the plaintiff was executed on the same cotton subsequent to the execution of the two mortgages to the Williams Horse & Mule Company and transferred by it to Mamie Cleaver. The cotton obtained by Mamie Cleaver under the two mortgages held by her was not sufficient to pay the mortgage indebtedness, and it follows that the judgment of the circuit court was correct. It will therefore be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "John P. Roberts, for appellant.", "W. L. Curtis, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bonner v. Stroud Brothers' Gin.\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1927.\n1. Mortgages \u2014 construction\u2014what law governs. \u2014 In construing and determining the priority of mortgages covering cotton to he grown in another State, where the contracts were to be- performed, the courts must be governed by the laws of that State.\n2. Acknowledgment \u2014 sufficiency.\u2014A certificate of acknowledgment of a mortgage held valid under the laws of Oklahoma.\n3. Mortgages \u2014 sufficiency of description. \u2014 Crop mortgages describing the crop as so many acres of cotton to be planted and grown by the mortgagor on a named person\u2019s land \u201cin Poteau bottom in Leflore County, Oklahoma,\u201d held not void for uncertainty of description.\n4. Mortgages \u2014 certainty of description. \u2014 Evidence that a mortgagor grew only 15 acres of cotton on a certain farm held to render certain a description in one mortgage as the crop grown on 30 acres of land and in another as the crop grown on 15 acres.\n5. Mortgages \u2014 priority.\u2014A junior mortgagee is not entitled to judgment against a senior mortgagee for conversion of the mortgaged property where it was not sufficient to pay the senior mortgages.\nAppeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; John E. Tatum, Judge;\naffirmed.\nstatement oe facts.\nThis is an action by Joe Bonner against the Stroud Bros. Gin, a partnership, and Mamie Cleaver, to recover $161.14 for the conversion of seed cotton claimed by the plaintiff. The answer justified the taking and converting of the seed cotton under two chattel mortgages executed by the person who planted and grew the cotton, duly transferred to Mamie Cleaver. The seed cotton in controversy was grown on the Mamie Cleaver farm, in LeFlore County, Oklahoma, during the year 1924.\nThe plaintiff introduced in evidence a chattel mortgage executed to him on the 25th day of May, 1924. The mortgage was duly acknowledged and filed for record in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The mortgage was given to secure an indebtedness of $250 owed by Bud Hill to Joe Bonner. The property described in the mortgage was two horses, some plow tools, \u201cand my entire crop, consisting of 15 acres of growing cotton, no acres of growing corn, to be planted and grown on Mamie Cleaver farm in said LeFlore County, State of Oklahoma, about 4 miles east from Peno, LeFlore County, Oklahoma, during the year 1924.\u201d Bud Hill failed to pay any part of the mortgage indebtedness. .\nMamie Cleaver claimed the seed cotton in controversy under two chattel mortgages executed by Jefferson Hill to the Williams Horse and Mule Company, which were transferred to her. On the 24th day of December, 1923, Jefferson Hill executed a chattel mortgage on a bay mare mule \u2018 \u2018 and all of my, or our, interest in the following described crops planted and grown by me, or us, by tenants, lessees and employees: 30 acres cotton;............ acres corn; .....,...... acres potatoes; ............acres ............ on the following described lands, to-wit: On Mamie Cleaver\u2019s land near Poteau Bridge, 1 mile southwest Fort Smith, in Poteau Bottom, section............, township............, range........., State of Oklahoma, 1/4 rent; said property now being within the county of LeFlore, State of Oklahoma.\u201d\nThe mortgage was duly signed by Jefferson Hill, and the acknowledgment of it reads as follows:\n\u201cJefferson Hill, being duly sworn according to law, says that he is the sole and exclusive owner of all the property mentioned and described in tbe foregoing cbat-' tel mortgage; that there are no chattel mortgages or liens of any ldnd whatsoever on any part of said property; and that each and every representation in the foregoing mortgage is true, and has been made for the purpose of securing a loan of money on said property; said loan being based upon said representations.\n[Signed] \u201cJefferson Hill.\n\u201cSubscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of Dec. 1923. Kate Bell, notary public.\n\u201cMy commission expires Feb. 15, 1925.\u201d\nThis mortgage was given to secure a note of even date with the mortgage for $193.\nOn the 13th day of February, 1924, Jeff Hill executed a mortgage to the Williams Horse & Mule Company on certain live stock and 15 acres of cotton to be planted and grown by him on Mrs. Mamie Cleaver\u2019s farm, in Poteau Bottom, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. This mortgage was given to secure an indebtedness of $50, and no part of the mortgage debt has been paid. The mortgage was signed by Jeff Hill, and the acknowledgment to it is as follows\n\u201c........................being first duly sworn according to law, says that he is the sole and exclusive owner of all the property mentioned and described in the foregoing chattel mortgage; that there are no chattel mortgages or liens of any kind whatsoever on any part of said property ; and that each and every representation in the foregoing mortgage is true, and has been made for the purpose of securing a loan of money on said property; said loan heing based upon said representation.\n\u201c [Signed].........................................\n\u201cSubscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of February, 1924. [Seal] Nina Garmon, notary public.\n\u201cMy commission expires May 5, 1925.\u201d\nAccording to the testimony of Mrs. Mamie Cleaver, Bud Hill, Jeff Hill and Jefferson Hill were the same person, and, during the year 1924, raised a crop of cotton on her farm in .LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Hill planted about 40 acres of cotton, but most of it grew up in weeds and bushes, and some of it got under water. Hill became disheartened, and did not work more than 15 acres of the crop planted by him. He raised only two bales and a remnant of 300 ponds. After paying the expenses of picking, Mamie Cleaver got in all $161.14 for the cotton raised by Hill. Mrs. Cleaver gave the Williams Horse & Mule Company $225 for the transfer of the two mortgages to her.\nThe jury returned a verdict for'the defendants, and the plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nJohn P. Roberts, for appellant.\nW. L. Curtis, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0569-01", "first_page_order": 587, "last_page_order": 592 }