The Newtown bee., 1899-01-27

within reasonable time, was not effec- tual to hold such land against the at- taching creditors of Lawrence, and be- cause, as against such attaching cred itors, the property described in the mort gage deed remained in law the property of the mortgagor.
 It is difficult to distinguish this case in principle from that In re Wilcox and Howe Co, 70 Conn. 220, very recently decided by this court. In that case the receiver applied to this court to have de- termined the relative rights of the receiv. CT and of certain creditors to certain ma chinery sold and delivered by such cred itors to the Wilcox & Howe Company by conditional contracts of sale which, by statute, are made ''absolute sales except as between the vendor and vendee or their personal representatives" and all personal property sold is, by provision of statute, rendered "liable to be taken 1 by attachment and execution for the debts of the vendee in the same manner as any other property not exempted by law" unless such contracts are made in conformity with certain requirements of the statute, one of which is that they shall be "recorded within 8 reasonable time in the town clerks office in the town where the vendee resides" Several of said contracts were defective because not recorded, and also in other respects. The only defect in one was the failure to record as required by law. The law be- ing so that such conditional contracts were valid at common law (Cohen V. Schneider, 70 Conn. 505). The question was submitted to us whether,Ia against the receiver, the title to the property re- mained in the vendors, or whether the receiver had that right to the property which an attaching creditor would have had, and whether he might hold and dis pose of the property for the benefit of all of the creditors of the Wheeler 6S Howe Company.
 It was urged by counsel that in deter mining the question of title between the creditors and the receiver, when the con- tract was made in good faith and was valid inter partes, the receiver should be held to be the representative of the Vii. cox & Howe Company, and not of the creditors. This court said in deciding the question: "The machinery covered by the conditional contracts of sale, was, as to the creditors of the Wilcox & Howe Company, the absolute property of that company. It was available to the cred. itors in payment of their debts, and could have been appropriated for that purpose by attachment and levy of execution When it came into the hands of the re ceiver of the insolvent corporation, ths law sequestered it on behalf of the cred itors and for the benefit of all of them as the absolute property of the corpora tion, just as fully and just as effectually as the creditors could have sequestereC it by attachment and levy. For the pur pose of making that sequestration eff fectual, the receiver is the representative of the creditors, and holds the property as they would have held it by prope proceedings, as the absolute property o1 the corporation. In 8 case like the pres ent, & dispute as to the ownership ot property between the rece yer and the conditional vendors, is, in effect, ans must be regarded as, one between sucl vendors and the creditors of the condi tional vendee."
 The substance of this decision is tha an unrecorded contract of conditions sale, free from fraud and valid at com
 mon law, made by statute intellectual be tween others than he vendor and yer dee, or their personal representatives, invalid as against receiver.
 h the National Cash Register Go. '
 Woodbrlry. 70 Conn. 321, this court hel
 that the absolute title to personal proE er6y, held under an unrecorded contrae
 of conditional sale, passed to the vendee'
 trustee under voluntary assignment notwithstanding the latter's knowledge
 before the assignment, of such contrae
 and it's character.
 The principle involved in the questio , presented by the case before us, is th : : same, whether applied to conveyances { real estate, or conditional contracts fe
 the sale of personal property of the kin
 described in the two cases just referre : to.
 For the reasons stated there Is error 7 the judgment Of the Superior Court, an ' it is reversed as to the defendants Ha { and Kelly.
 In this opinion Torrance and Baldwin x Js., concurred; Andrews, Q. J.a ar ' Hamersley, J., dissented.
 The foregoing is true copy of ti . original opinion as filed with the report ' or the court; but the opinion Is subje { to alteration and additiong by the iudg ' until printed in the official report ' !. -IJames T. Andrews, reporter. !. To insure happy new year. keep | T. liver clear and the body vigorous by ' h ing DeWitt's Little Early Risars, U % famous little pills for constipation al sr liver troubles, Edgar F. Hawley, Ne ,d town; !. ', Ball q O., Sandy Hoo