Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1918-10-18
MORTGAGE INVALID
CHANCELLOR HOLDS
Renders Decision of Interest in
Case Where Paper is Executed
to Cover Debt.

Chancellor Curtis has filed in the
Court of Chanccrv an opinion of general
interest in the case OF Charles W. Jcffer-
son against John c. Stuckert and James
|. Padey, i'll which it is held that q chnt-
tel mortgage executed by James ]. Padley
To John G. Stuckcrt is invalid as against
eXeS ution creditors OF Padley.
On April l. 1916. Padley executed
and delivered to John {. Sucker. a
chattel mortgage covering growing
wheat crop. and on June |, 1916, second
Chattel mortgage vas executed and de-
livcred hv Padlcv TO Stuckcrt, which
covered a growing corn crop, both oi
which mortgages we're duly recorded
in New Castle County. In August,
1915. the wheat crop was delivered ny
Pailev to Stuckcrt and sold and tie
proceeds applied to the payment OF the
first mentioned chattrl mortgage
Charles W jefferson. a judgment
creditor of Padlcy and the complainant
in the suit in the Court oi Ih?n"try,
issued an execution on his Judgmen,
and the sheriff levied upon and sold the
corn crop, and both jefferson and StuCkCrt
made demand upon the sheriff tor pay
ment cut Of the proceeds oi sand sale.
The sheriff thcr'upon paid the prWecd-
of the sale into ;hc superior Court ~
New Castle County. and nv leave OF
said court. Hugh VI. Morris and Syl-
yestcr - TuurSend Ir filed bill in
the Court of ChanccrH u nave declared
Invalid tho chattcl mortgage laced June
!. 1910. Walter ! Willis appearing a.
solicitor tor both >tuokert and padlcy
The condition OF the mortgage al
June |. 1916 stated tho amuu thereof
as nov due and owing from the mort
gagor to the no:tgaRcc and the affidavit
attached to the riort gage stated 'th"I
the above mortgage was mat!r Tor the
bona f'de purpose Of securing ,.e'
and was made to cover the property q
the mort gagor Or tu protect II from hts
creditors. or tc hn'ier or delay them Iii
the collection ot their ieot>
At tie hearing ct The cause before he
Chancellor. the testimony oi witnesses
showed hat 1he NOR; gage was gwen
nos ons lcI the purpose oi securing !,
dent then ,''lr and owing ,he rnortEaRcc
from the murtgaEor hit was also given
IL secure future advances oi money hN
| the rlcrtcggce 10 the mortgaenr
! The QUESTION raised in this casc, io,
the r~t time III the State 81 far IS r.
pcr:,4! ,.~c~ show. wa- whether q mr. IT
! gage ut personal prnrcrty inch puTport'
/ 10 StCttT1 tnlN tic Z due and oW u =
{! but which wnS also gwen 70 secure AZ
J Iancc~ To o. made 10 the mortgage
| ~ The rnurtgagcc, j. valid As sgSIl..
| an cxtru,.on cr,rii or - tho mortgagor
! levy ou n. mort gagged property haHh,
/, been laAd, after the recording u th'
mortgage t1oUgn TIE Judgment iru'
existed before the chattcl MOI tgaa
! was made
The CnaircIlcr hold that 'hc chattc
+, ln"rteAe" statute ni the stat. ot Dcla
ware vs> intended t. afford ncN cor
vcnicncc IN financial transactions, an'
~ g.v, pr I >ctl0n - persons other th"l
the partics thereto against dccrp1io:
AM posse !" traud 81 requiring D.
affidavit Is % thc resi- TRANSACTION a..
thar nI,l1g"gc gwen in facf toecrs rr
d,61 de md fl.tHr4 dvanreS nf.t wh'"l
states s ttr it't ise ami ewing