Case Name: Lester Turner et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Caldwell, Sheriff, et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1896-09-26
Citations: 15 Wash. 274
Docket Number: No. 2116
Parties: Lester Turner et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Caldwell, Sheriff, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
[No. 2116.
Decided September 26, 1896.]
Lester Turner et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Caldwell, Sheriff, et al., Respondents.
CHATTEL MORTGAGES — REMOVAL OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY — FAILURE TO RECORD MORTGAGE.
Under Gen. Stat., § 1649, which provides that when mortgaged personal property is removed from the county, it is, except as between the parties, exempted from the operation of the mortgage, unless, within thirty days after such removal, the mortgage is recorded in the county to which the property has been taken, one who acquires such property more than thirty days after its removal to another county is entitled to the possession thereof, when the mortgage had not been recorded in such county, although such subsequent purchaser had knowledge of the incumbrance and the property had been removed from the county of its location when mortgaged without the knowledge or consent of the mortgagee.
Appeal from Superior Court, Mason County. — Hon. Mason Irwin, Judge.
Affirmed.
Kiefer & Balliet, for appellants.
John C. Kleber, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appellants' claim to the property in controversy in this action is founded upon a chattel mortgage which was executed in King county where the property was then situate. Said property was subsequently taken to Chehalis county and the mortgage was also recorded there. Thereafter it was removed from Chehalis county to Mason county, and remained there-until levied upon by the sheriff by virtue of an execution in favor of respondent Hart, which levy was made long after the period of thirty days from the time of the removal of the horses to Mason county had expired. The mortgage was never filed for record in Mason county.
Appellants contend that the property was surreptitiously taken from Chehalis county to Mason county without their knowledge or consent. They furthermore offered to show that the respondents, at the time of the levy, knew of the existence of the mortgage. We are of the opinion that this was insufficient to sustain appellants' claim. The statute (§ 1649, Gen. Stat.) provides that when personal property is removed from the county, it is, except as between the parties to the mortgage, exempted from its operation unless within thirty days after such removal the mortgage is recorded in the county to which the property has been taken, etc.; and this without regard to any knowledge of the existence of such mortgage by the parties subsequently claiming the property. The obligation was upon the mortgagee to keep track of the mortgaged property and see that the same was not taken from the county where it was mortgaged, or that the mortgage lien was preserved as pointed out by the statute.
Affirmed.