In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of H.F. Neil. On petition by trustee to review an order of the referee respecting validity of chattel mortgage.
Order affirmed.
Some time prior to his bankruptcy, a valid chattel mortgage in duplicate original on certain furniture located in Pierce county on boat Mona was executed; one duplicate original was filed within ten days after execution, in the auditor's office of Pierce county. Shortly thereafter, the furniture was removed to King county, and within thirty days after such removal a duplicate original was filed in the office of the auditor of King county. Simultaneously with the execution of the mortgage was executed a mortgage upon the boat Mona, in which the furniture was situated. This mortgage was not filed for record.
After adjudication and his election, the trustee took possession of the boat and the furniture and filed a petition with the referee praying order of sale of said property, asserting claim thereto and praying that the mortgagee be required to file its claim, if any, and that upon such hearing be adjudged debarred from asserting any claim in and to the furniture.
The mortgagee appeared and conceded its lien upon the boat to be invalid as to the trustee; and the referee found the chattel mortgage a valid lien upon the furniture and directed the sale, on due notice, of the boat and furniture, upon separate bids, free and clear of all liens. The trustee, feeling aggrieved, seeks review.
NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Section 3788, Rem. Comp. Stat. of Washington, provides that a mortgage of personal property must be recorded in the office of the county auditor of the county in which the mortgaged property is situated, and when such property is thereafter removed from the county, except as to the parties, is exempted from the operation thereof, unless the mortgagee within thirty days after such removal causes the mortgage to be recorded in the county into which the property has been removed.
The mortgage, filed and indexed in Pierce county, was notice to the world of the lien upon the property and upon the filing and indexing of the duplicate original mortgage in the office of the auditor of King county within thirty days after the removal, was like notice of the lien in King county. The contention of the trustee that the expression, "the mortgage," to be recorded in the county into which the property has been removed, can refer only to the original duplicate filed in Pierce county and filing the original duplicate does not continue the lien, cannot obtain. The original duplicate filed in Pierce county must remain on file for the inspection of the public. Section 3781, Rem. Comp. Stat. One original duplicate represents as fully the obligation and the lien as the other, and, no provision appearing for filing a certified copy, the filing of the original duplicate in King county, upon the removal of the property and indexing the same, was sufficient. The lien is complete when the mortgage is filed and indexed in pursuance of the recording act. Section 3782, Rem. Comp. Stat. A paper required by statute to be recorded is, within legal contemplation, recorded when it is filed in the proper office for that purpose. Beverley v. Ellis, 1 Rand. (Va.) 102; see, also, Horsley v. Garth, 2 Grat. (Va.) 471, 44 Am. Dec. 393. The recordation was completed when the chattel mortgage was filed with the auditor (Troy Wagon Co. v. Hutton, 53 W. Va. 154; 44 S.E. 135), and especially within the provision of section 3782, Rem. Comp. Stat. See, also, Hardy v. Houston, 2 N.H. 309. Fairbanks v. Davis, 50 Vt. 251, says a statute requiring liens on personal property to be recorded is satisfied by the filing of the memorandum in the proper office. The mortgagee did all that the statute required and the trustee is bound by the notice thus promulgated. I am assuming the mortgage was filed and indexed in King county pursuant to the recording act, since no point was made at bar in argument, and upon that assumption, the order of the referee is affirmed.