{
  "id": 2916854,
  "name": "William R. Howard, Appellee, v. Hartman Furniture & Carpet Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howard v. Hartman Furniture & Carpet Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,435",
  "first_page": "562",
  "last_page": "563",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 562"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2778,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3464854514684061
    },
    "sha256": "dbc9e9a2c5c92d0e6362a770a859a26ed5389598a6daf63a633d7a7030e9d423",
    "simhash": "1:c064a292322ed285",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William R. Howard, Appellee, v. Hartman Furniture & Carpet Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.",
      "W. M. Barnes and John B. King, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William R. Howard, Appellee, v. Hartman Furniture & Carpet Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,435.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Peoria county; the Hon. \"Chester F. Barnett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William R. Howard, plaintiff, against Hartman Furniture & Carpet Company, defendant, to recover the value of goods taken by defendant under a chattel mortgage given to secure- a note for the unpaid balance of the purchase money for the goods. From a judgment for plaintiff for $79.09, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Chattel mortgages\u2014when evidence shows indebtedness of mortgagee to mortgagor. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence held sufficient to show his indebtedness to defendant in excess of defendant\u2019s alleged indebtedness to plaintiff, in an action to recover the value of certain goods bought by plaintiff of defendant on partial payments, which goods defendant took on default in payments under a mortgage and sold.\n2. Chattel mortgages, \u00a7 274 \u2014when forgery of mortgage does not preclude foreclosure of prior mortgage. A claim by the mortgagor of chattels that a second mortgage on the property was a forgery and hence a sale by the mortgagee constituted a conversion, is not available where in any event the first mortgage was valid and would have authorized the sale.\n3. Chattel mortgages\u2014when second mortgage does not supersede first mortgage by wife as agent for husband. A second note and chattel mortgage did not supersede a first mortgage executed by plaintiff\u2019s wife as his agent, unless such second note and mortgage were executed by her, as to the goods covered by the first note and mortgage.\n4. Chattel mortgages\u2014when instruction ignoring first mortgage in action by mortgagee to.recover value of goods is erroneous. An instruction ignoring a first mortgage, in an action to recover the value of goods, a part of which was covered by such mortgage and all of which by a second mortgage, and which had been taken by the mortgagee on default of plaintiff and sold, held erroneous.\nPlaintiff\u2019s wife acting for him purchased the goods of defendant, giving her note and mortgage for the balance due after a small payment. Later another large purchase was made and. a new note and mortgage for all balance due on both purchases with a new mortgage to secure same upon all the goods was given. Upon defaults in monthly payments, defendant took possession and sold the goods.\nKirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.\nW. M. Barnes and John B. King, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0562-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 587
}