Case Name: David B. Dunham, Respondent, v. David Silberstein and Edward M. Harlam, Appellants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-10
Citations: 32 Misc. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: David B. Dunham, Respondent, v. David Silberstein and Edward M. Harlam, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
David B. Dunham, Respondent, v. David Silberstein and Edward M. Harlam, Appellants.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
October, 1900.)
Chattel mortgage — When void as to judgment creditor.
A chattel mortgage, not filed until after issue of execution against the mortgagor, is void as to the judgment creditor even though he had actual notice of its existence before entry of his judgment.
Appeal from judgment on verdict and order denying new trial. The action was brought to recover possession of seven carriages, or their value. The defendants are the substituted indemnitors of the sheriff, the original defendant. The answer denied every thing except the taking, and justified that under an execution in favor of the defendant, Edward M. Harlam, and against John E. Cammann, the plaintiff’s mortgagor.
Joseph Rosenzweig, for appellants.
David M. Neuberger, for respondent.

Opinion:
Hascall, J.
This appeal involves the main question as to whether a chattel mortgage, not filed until after issue of execution against the mortgagor, is still valid against the creditor, he having had actual notice of its existence prior to the time of entry of his judgment. We think the law upon this point is established that, as to a purchaser having knowledge of the mortgage lien, even though the instrument be not filed, he is bound; but, as to the judgment creditor, such mortgage is actually void, notwithstanding he may have had notice of its existence brought home to him. Stephens v. Perrine, 143 N. Y. 476. We write upon this same subject in another ease at this present term, presenting the like proposition. McDonald v. City Trust, etc., Co. And see also Hale v. Sweet, 40 N. Y. 99. The facts before us, shown by the record, would call for reversal on other grounds, discussed by counsel, concerning testimony admitted over objection and exception; but since the main question is resolved in favor of the appellants, such grounds need not be further considered.
Judgment and order appealed from reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.
Conlan, J., concurs.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.