LEWIS M. HORN AND ROBERT B. MCGREGOR, PETITIONERS
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this chattel mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decree, holding that a mortgage executed on December 1, 1949 was intended to secure only future purchases of merchandise made after that date, not prior purchases made to a third-party tenant lessee.
The mortgage was intended to secure only future advances of merchandise made to the appellant beginning on December 1, 1949, not prior purchases made to Vilsack. The mortgage's language concerning future advances and the circumstances of execution—including the credit manager's investigation and the transition from Vilsack's management to McGregor's—establish that credit was previously extended to Vilsack on the faith of his financial ability, not McGregor's.
“This mortgage is intended to secure said note or notes together with all extension or extensions, renewal or renewals of such note or notes or any obligation owing directly or indirectly by the mortgagor to the mortgagee.”
The broad language in the mortgage that General Mills relied upon to claim it secured all past, present, and future purchases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGregor leased his dairy farm to J.G. Vilsack and General Mills extended credit to the farm operation under Vilsack's name. When McGregor took back p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The respondent, Arthur F. Lederle, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, having filed a response to the order to show cause heretofore issued;
And it appearing that subsequent thereto said Court held a hearing in the causes herein referred to, and on March 21, 1952 rendered a decision in the same, and by reason thereof the action sought by the petitioners herein has taken place and the proceeding has become moot;
It Is Ordered that petitioners’ application for a mandamus be denied.