Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1918-10-17
THIS MORTGAGE
FOUND INVALID

Chancellor Curtis has filed in the
Court of Chancery an opinion OF gen
ersl interest in the case OF Charles w.
jefferson against John C.. Stuckert and
James. l. Padley, in which it IS held that
a chattel mortgage executed by James /.
Padley 10 John G. Stuckert Is invalid as
against execution creditors OF Psdley.
On April 1. 1916, Padley executed and
delivered to John C. Stuckert chattel
mortgage covering a growing wheat
crop, and on June 4, 1916, a second chat
tel mortgage was executed and delivered
by Padley to Stuckert which covered
growing corn crop, both OF which
mortgages were duly recorded in New
Castle county. In August, 1916. The
wheat crop was delivered by Padley' 70
Stuckert and sold and the proceeds
applied to the payment OF the first men
toned chattel mortgage.
Charles w. jefferson. a judgment
creditor Of Padley and the complainant
in the suit in the Court OF Chancery,
issued an execution on his judgment
and the sheriff levied upon and sold
the corn crop. and both jefferson and
Stuckert made demand upon the sheriff
for payment out of the proceeds OF
the proceeds Of sale into the Superior
Court Of New Castle county, and by
leave Of the court, Hugh NJ. Morris
and Sylvester d. Townsend, Jr, He'd
a bill in the Court Of Chancery to have
declared invalid the chattel mortgage
dated June 1, 1916, Walter J. Willis ap-
pearing as solicitor for both Stuckert
and Padley.
The condition Of the mortgage OF
June 4, 1916, stated the amount thereof
as now due and owing'I from the
mortgagor 10 the mortgage, and the
affidavit attached TO the mortgage
stated "that the above mortgage was
made for the bona flde purpose Of Sc
curing a debt and was not made to
cover the property Of the mortgagOr
or TO protect it from his creditors, or
to hinder or delay them in the col
lection Of their debts"
At the hearing Of the cause before
the chancellor the testimony Of wit
nesses showed that the mortgage was
given not only for the purpose Of secur-
ing a debt then due and owing" the
mortgage from the mOrtgagOr, but
was also given TO secure future adj
vances OF money by the mortgage to
the mOrtgagOr.
The question raised in this case, for
the first time in the State. so far as re-
ported cases show. was whether
mortgage Of personal property which
purports to secure only a debt due and
owing, but which was also given to Sc
cure advances to be made TO the mort
gagor by the mortgage. is valid as
against an execution creditor OF the
mortgagOr, a levy on the moragaged
property have been made after the
recording Of the mortgage, though the
judgment debt existed before the chat
tel mortgage was made.
The chancellor held that the chattel
mortgage statute Of Delaware was in
tended 10 afford a new convenience in
financial transactions, and TO give pro-
lection to persons other than the parties
thereto against deception and possible
fraud, by requiring an affidavit as to
the real transaction, and that a mort
gage given in fact TO secure a debt due
and future advances. but which states
n IS for a debt due and owing must
be held invalid as against an execution
creditor OF the mortgagor.