Case Name: CHARLES M. PRESTON, as Receiver, etc., of JAMES D. McINTYRE, Appellant, v. THOMAS L. SOUTHWICK, GEORGE WELLS and JAMES D. McINTYRE, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-11
Citations: 49 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES M. PRESTON, as Receiver, etc., of JAMES D. McINTYRE, Appellant, v. THOMAS L. SOUTHWICK, GEORGE WELLS and JAMES D. McINTYRE, Respondents.
Judges: Bocees, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 49
Pages: 291–298

Head Matter:
CHARLES M. PRESTON, as Receiver, etc., of JAMES D. McINTYRE, Appellant, v. THOMAS L. SOUTHWICK, GEORGE WELLS and JAMES D. McINTYRE, Respondents.
Filing of a chattel mortgage — 1883, chwp. 279 — a subsequent agreement affecting it need not be filed — its validity is not affected by the fact that pojrt of the agreement rests in parol.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, who had been appointed January 16,1884, a receiver of the property of the defendant McIntyre, in proceedings supplementary to execution, to recover the value of property of the said McIntyre, alleged to have been wrongfully and in fraud of the rights of his creditors taken by the defendants Southwiek and Wells, under two bills of sale given to them respectively by McIntyre on December 29,1888, and filed in the county clerk’s office on December thirty-first (the thirtieth being Sunday).. The referee found that the said bills were given by the said McIntyre ata time when he was insolvent, for money theretofore loaned to him by the defendant Southwiek, and for notes indorsedf or his accommodation by Wells; that, after the execution and delivery of the said bills of sale, the defendants Southwiek and McIntyre signed a written agreement by which M clntyre agreed to pay over to Southwiek all moneys realized upon articles sold and described in said bills of sale, to be by him applied in payment of the sums mentioned therein, and to act as the agent of Southwiek and Wells in making such sales. The agreement then authorized McIntyre, “on the part of said Southwiek and Wells,” to sell the said articles as their agent, and not otherwise, and on condition that he pay over the proceeds as above. This agreement was not-filed.
Held, that the fact that the second agreement was not filed did not render the bills of sale void as against the creditors of McIntyre as being a failure to comply with the provisions of section 1 of chapter 279 of 1833, providing that every mortgage or conveyance intended to operate as a mortgage which shall not be accompanied by an immediate delivery and be followed by an actual and continued change of possession, shall be absolutely void as against the creditors of the mortgagor,'“unless the mortgage, or a true copy thereof, shall be filed.” (Landon, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment for $256.94 costs, entered in Ulster county on the report of a referee dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
The action was brought by the plaintiff as a receiver, appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution, to recover the value of certain property of the defendant James D. McIntyre, an insolvent, alleged to have been taken by the defendants Thomas L. Southwiek and George Wells, wrongfully and in fraud of the rights of creditors, under two bills of sale, and a written agreement set forth in the com plaint. The plaintiff was appointed receiver on the 15th day of January, 1884.
. The referee found that for a considerable time prior to December 29, 1883, James D. McIntyre was engaged in business in the city of Kingston, N. T.; that the defendant Wells had for some three years prior to December 29,1883, been an accommodation indorser for McIntyre, and on December 29,1883, was an accommodation indorser of notes made by McIntyre to the amount of about $925, which notes had been discounted by the State of New York National Bank and were then held by said bank, said McIntyre having received the proceeds of said notes,ivthich notes on said December twenty-ninth were not due. That said McIntyre had promised the defendant Southwick, in procuring loans from him, in substance, that if any business misfortunes should befall him, he would protect him and see that he was paid, and repeated the same statement to him when giving him a note for $885, and on such assurance payment of the amount for which said note was given was not pressed; that said McIntyre had from time to time continued to procure Wells to indorse his notes on the promise to him that he would certainly pay the notes and not allow him to lose by his indorsement; that on the 29th of December, 1883, McIntyre was insolvent and unable to pay his debts, and had been for a considerable time before Burdon & Stowe had commenced an action against James D. McIntyre for the collection of a debt due to them in the Supreme Court, prior to December 29, 1883, and on the 3d day of January, .1884, obtained judgment for $244.97, on which an execution was duly issued, returned unsatisfied, and thereafter, in proceedings supplementary to execution, the plaintiff was appointed receiver of said James D. McIntyre’s estate by an order made January 15, 1884, and was,'by an order of this court, authorized to bring this action ; that the plaintiff has duly qualified as such receiver; that said McIntyre, on the 29th day of December, 1883, made, executed and delivered to the defendant, George Wells, a bill of sale of a part of said McIntyre’s stock of trade in his said store, for the consideration of $925, named in said bill of sale; that the real consideration of said bill of sale was that said Wells was to pay notes upon which he was accommodation indorser, and which he did subsequently pay; that on said 29th day of December, 1883, said McIntyre made, executed and delivered to the defendant, Thomas L. Southwick, a bill of sale of a part of his stock of goods in said store, on payment and satisfaction of $885 then owing hy said McIntyre to said Southwick, the whole amount of which was then due, with interest thereon from August 3, 1883 ; that said McIntyre represented to said Southwick & Wells that the said bills of sale covered his entire stock of goods and accounts due him, and they were accepted in that belief; that the artimes enumerated in said bill of sale in fact did not cover his entire stock of goods, and some of them were left out of the enumeration by said McIntyre by reason of his not taking an inventory. Most of the valuable stock in his store being stoves piled up in the cellar, the names of them wore not correctly enumerated, and some were known as wrell by one name as another, but that said McIntyre did actually deliver over to said Southwick aud Wells his entire stock of goods under said bills of sale; that said bills of sale were filed in the Ulster county clerk’s office, in the city of Kingston, on the 31st day of December, 1883, said McIntyre, Southwick and Wells all residing in said city ; that immediately after the execution and delivery of said bills of sale, the defendant Southwick, for himself and said Wells, and by his authority, took possession of the stock of goods in the store, and thereafter continued in the possession thereof until sold, and on the said 29th day of December, 1883, entered into the following agreement:
“ It is hereby agreed by me, J ames D. McIntyre, that I will pay over to Thomas L. Southwick all moneys realized upon articles sold described in the bills of sale made by me to said Southwick and to George Wells, both dated Dec. 29, to he by said South-wick applied in payment of the sums mentioned in said bills of sale due said Southwick & Wells, and I agree to act as their agent in making said sales, and not otherwise. The entire proceeds of such sales to be applied to the reduction of said indebtedness. On the part of said Southwick & Wells, we authorize said McIntyre to sell the articles described in the two bills of sale as our agent only, and not otherwise, and on condition that he pay over the proceeds ás above, and apply them to the indebtedness to us.
Dated Deo. 29, 1884.
JAMES D. MoINTYRE.
THOMAS L. SOUTHWICK.”
G. H. Adams, for the appellant.
J. Newton Fiero, for the respondents, Southwick & Wells.

Opinion:
LEARNED, P. J. :
The bills of sale from McIntyre to Southwick and to Wells were executed and delivered December 29, 1883. They were filed December 31, 1883, in the proper office. The intervening day, December thirtieth, was Sunday.
If there was an oral agreement that these bills of sale should be, in fact, mortgages, sueh oral agreement could not be filed. All that could be done under the statute (chapter 279, Laws of 1833, sec. 1) was to file the bills of sale. And that was done promptly. The statute speaks 'of a " conveyance intended to operate as a mortgage" and requires its filing. And of course nothing more can be done, where the agreement rests in parol, by which a bill of sale, absolute on its face, is in fact a mortgage. The character of the bills of sale? tiiat is, whether they were absolute or intended as mortgages, must rest upon the agreement existing at the time when they were delivered. It was subsequent to such delivery and (according to the testimony of Southwick) subsequent to the filing of the bills of sale in the county clerk's office that Southwick executed to McIntyre the authority to sell the goods. This was not signed by Wells.
Now, if the oral agreement, on which the bills of sale were delivered, made them in fact mortgages, then this authority, signed by Southwick, was no part of the chattel mortgages, and it was not necessary to file it. If the bills of sale were chattel mortgages when they were executed, then they were properly filed, for the written authority signed by Southwick was not in existence when the bills of sale were delivered.
But that written authority was not material to the contract between Southwick and Wells on the one side and McIntyre on the other, in respect to the transfer of his property to them. It might be useful as evidence tending to show what the actual oral contract was; but it was not a part of the contract. It was only an authority from one of the two separate mortgagees (perhaps acting for both) to McIntyre to dispose of their property, and to pay the avails to South-wick, the mortgagee; such avails to be applied to the debts for which the bills of sale had previously been given as security. It did not make chattel mortgages out of the bills of sale; but it only acknowledged the duty of the mortgagees which already rested upon them by the oral agreement. It refers to the sums mentioned in the bills of sale due said Southwick and Wells. And the bills of sale had expressed these amounts as the consideration. Suppose this paper had been executed to some third party (as it might have been), who was to sell these goods for Southwick and Wells? Would there have been any necessity for filing it ?
The case of Ely v. Carnley (19 N. Y., 496), holds only that, where a copy of a chattel mortgage is filed, after the lapse of the first year (under sec. 3 of the Act), and the statement of the amount claimed was too much by $100, such filing was not good. But that does not hold that where a bill of sale, absolute on its face, is, by oral agreement, a chattel mortgage; such bill of sale cannot be filed. Yet such bill of sale does not show the amount of the lien.
I find no case which requires the filing of such an instrument as the power executed by Southwick to McIntyre; and I do not think that the bills of sale (assuming for the present that they were chattel mortgages) were void because this paper was not filed. That where a bill of sale is, by oral agreement, intended as a mortgage, it is a full compliance with the statute to file the bill of sale, seems to me evident. The statute says: " A conveyance intended to operate as a mortgage." Now, if the instrument is on its face a mortgage, then this language is inappropriate. The language must be intended for the case where the instrument is absolute on its face, but "intended to operate as a mortgage " by oral agreement. It seems to me that the mortgages (assuming them to be such) were properly filed under the statute.
I think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Bocees, J., concurred.