Case Name: Andrew Martin, Resp't, v. Emanuel Rothschild, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-14
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 76
Docket Number: 
Parties: Andrew Martin, Resp’t, v. Emanuel Rothschild, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Andrew Martin, Resp’t, v. Emanuel Rothschild, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 14, 1886.)
1. Chattel mortgages—Where they must be filed—3 R. S., (6th ed.), 143, § 11.
Chattel mortgages, hy 3 R. S., (6th ed.), 143, § 11, must, in the city of Hew York, be tiled in the register’s office; in all other cities of the state and in the towns of the state in which a county clerk’s office is kept., they must he filed in the county clerk's office; and in each of the other towns of the state, in the office of the town clerk thereof.
2. Same—What provisions not changed by 1 R. S., (6th ed.), 944.
It is provided by 1 R. S., '6th ed.), 944, that all that part of the duty of the county clerk o£ Kings County, which in the city of Hew York is required to he done hy the register of deeds therein, shall he done by the register of Kings county; and it is fur her provided, that the clerk of Kings county shall not perform .‘■uch duties. Held, that this provision did not change the statute regulation as to filing chattel mortgages in those towns of a county outside of the town in which a county clerk’s office was kept.
Appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, rendered at the Kings county circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, upon the minutes of the trial judge.
Morris & Pearsall, for app’lt; Wm. J Oaynor, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiff claims title to certain personal property by force of a bona fide sale to him thereof, by one Samuel Wardell.
The defendant claims that Samuel and John Wardell mortgaged the property to him by a chattel mortgage. The Wardells lived in Flatbush, Kings county, and the mortgage was filed in the town clerk's office of that town. The court held that it should have been filed in the register's office of Kings county. This was an erroneous ruling. The Revised Statutes provide for the filing of personal or chattel mortgages. In the city of New York the proper place is the register's office. In all the other cities of the state, and in the towns of the state, in which a county clerk's office is kept, the instrument must be filed in the county clerk's office, and in each of the other towns of the state, in the office of the town clerk thereof. 3 R S. (6th ed.), p. 143, Sec. 11.
It would be plain that the office of the town clerk of the town of Matbush was the proper place to file the mortgage, but for the act creating a register for Kings county.
By this act all that part of the duty of the county clerk of Kings county, which in the city of New York is required to be done by the register of deeds therein, shall be done by the register of Kings county, and the clerk of Kings county was forbidden to perform such duties. 1 R. S. (6th ed.), 944.
The act in question did not change the Revised Statutes in respect to those towns of a county outside of the town in which the county clerk's office was kept. The county clerk of Kings county could not, before the act creating the register was passed, file a Matbush mortgage, and it is only the duty of the county clerk of Kings comity which the register is to perform.
The judgment should be reversed anda new trial granted, costs to abide event.
Pratt, J., concurs._