
    NATHANIEL PERRY v. H. S. DOW.
    
    
      Chattel Mortgage. Trespass Parol Evidence.
    
    Parol evidence is admissible to prove that a chattel mortgage was executed without consideration, and that it was verbally agreed by the parties to it that the mortgagor could sell the property as though no mortgage had been given; and it is not a conversion for the mortgagor with such an agreement to sell the property.
    Trespass and trover. Trial by jury, September Term, 1883, Eedeieíd, J., presiding. Yerdict ordered for the plaintiff. The plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant executed and delivered to him a chattel mortgage of the property named in the declaration to secure a $350 note; and that the defendant had sold the property without the consent of the plaintiff in writingto sell the same. The defendant offered to prove that the note and mortgage were given without consideration; and that, at the time of their execution and delivery, it was agreed verbally that the defendant might dispose of the property as he pleased and just as he would if no mortgage had been given. Hut the plaintiff claimed that he had never made such an agreement. The defendant’s evidence was excluded.
    
      J. P. Lamyson, for the plaintiff.
    -for the defendant.
    
    
      
       No attorney’s name was on the defendant’s brief.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tart, J.

If the defendant had the consent of the plaintiff to sell the property, there was no wrongful conversion in its sale, and consequently neither trespass nor trover would lie. The rejection of the testimony to show such consent was error.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.  