Case Name: F. E. Creelman Lumber Company v. Lesh
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1904-11-05
Citations: 73 Ark. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. E. Creelman Lumber Company v. Lesh.
Judges: Mr. Justice Battue concurs in these views.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 16–20

Head Matter:
F. E. Creelman Lumber Company v. Lesh.
Opinion delivered November 5, 1904.
1. Laws or another state — judicial notice. — Under act of April 11, ■ 1901, providing that judicial notice shall be taken of the laws of other States, it is unnecessary to prove the laws of another State. (Page 18.)
2. Chattel- mortgage — removal to state — eneorcement.—A chattel mortgage, duly executed and recorded in another State upon property there situate, which .was subsequently removed, to this State by the mortgagor, will, by comity, be enforced in this State, if it does not appear that the removal was made with the mortgagee’s consent. (Page 18.)
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court.
Marcus L. Hawkins, Chancellor.
Suit by J. A. Lesh and J. A. Summerland, composing the firm of J. A. Lesh & Company v. E. S. Richards and the F. E. Creelman Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, from which defendants appealed.
Affirmed.
The complaint states that E. S. Richards, being indebted to plaintiffs, as evidenced by two promissory notes of $287.50 each, executed to them a chattel mortgage conveying the property in controversy,. which at the time the mortgage was executed was situated in Fulton County, Indiana, which mortgage was duly executed and recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds and mortgages within and for said county of Fulton and State of Indiana, in accordance with the laws of said State; that since the execution of said mortgage the said defendant removed the property embraced in the mortgage aforesaid to Chicot County, Arkansas, and the defendant, F. E. Creelman Lumber Company, is now in possession of said property, and claims to be the owner thereof by virtue of a purchase thereof from defendant Richards that no part of said notes or interest thereon has been paid. They pray that the mortgage be foreclosed, and the property sold.
The answer of the F. E. Creelman Lumber Company set up that the company was a purchaser in good faith; denied the validity of plaintiff’s indebtedness, and that the mortgage was executed according to the laws of Indiana.
The court found the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and rendered judgment enforcing the mortgage.
Baldy Vinson and J. H. Carmichael, for appellant.
Appellant paid a valuable consideration, and nothing was wanting to give him the right of a bona fide purchaser. 9 Vt. 358; 23 Vt. 279; 15 Pick. 17; 13 Mass. 146; 7 Wall, 139; 9 Pa. 616. The comity extended to the lex loci must yield to the positive law and public interest where the remedy is sought. 5 Cranch, 289; 12 Wheat. 361; Story, Conf. Laws, § § 28, 244; 2 Kent, 458; 13 Mass. 6; 13 Pick. 193; 84 Mich. 30; 53 N. Y. 513; Minor, Conf. Laws, § 132; Wharton, Conf. Laws. § 275/7 31 Ark. 32. Where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss should fall on the one who caused the dilemma. 67 Penn. 82; 55 N. H. 602; 72 Ind. 533; 47 Ark. 366; 3 Sh. & Redf. Neg. 227. Registration laws have no extra-territorial force. 10 Ind. 28. The acknowledgment was not sufficient. 95 la. 710; 50 Neb. 906; 3 Ark. 469; 50 Ark. 237; 17 Ark. 154; 20 Ark. 136; 32 Ark. 453; 35 Ark. 365. The courts of this State shall take judicial knowledge of the laws of other States. 44 Ark. 273; 46 Pac. 141; 82 Md. 631; 119 Mich. 274; 59 N. E. 24.

Opinion:
Wood, J.
When the decree was rendered, the act of April 11, 1901, which provides that judicial notice shall be taken of the laws of other States, was in force. It was, therefore, unnecessary to prove the laws of Indiana upon the subject of recording chattel mortgages. The court was correct in finding that the mortgage "was duly executed, 'acknowledged and recorded in Fulton County, Indiana, where the mortgagor resided and the property was situated when the mortgage was executed." Sec. 4913, Rev. Stat. of Ind. (1881).
In Hall v. Pillow, this court held that the lien of a mortgage in another State was not displaced by the wrongful removal of the property from that State to this. 31 Ark. 32. The authorities generally hold that a chattel mortgage, good according to the laws of the place where the mortgage is executed and recorded and the property is then situate, will be good, by comity, in any State to which the property may be afterwards removed by the mortgagor, unless there is some statute in such State to the contrary. This, too, as against an innocent purchaser for value from the mortgagor. In some cases it is said the rule obtains even though the property may have been removed with the consent of the mortgagee. Shapard v. Hynes, 104 Fed. Rep. 449; Alferitz v. Ingalls, 83 Fed. Rep. 964, and authorities cited in both cases. See also authorities cited at p. 1061, Pingrey, Chat. Mort. § 435. Jones, Chat. Mort. § 260.
In a few States a different rule prevails. Montgomery v. Wight, 8 Mich. 143; Corbett v. Littlefield, 84 Mich. 30; MacCabe v. Blymyre, 9 Phil. (Pa.) 615. These cases, it will be observed, treat the chattel mortgage as giving a mere lien/ and not a transfer of title. In our State it is different. Whittington v. Flint, 43 Ark. 504.
We do not decide in this case what would be the effect of the consent of the mortgagee to the removal of the property. That question is not raised. The mortgagee is seeking here to enforce a mortgage which he has duly established according to the laws of Indiana. There is no allegation in the answer and no proof that the property 'was moved from that State to this with his consent. It will not be presumed that the mortgagee did any act to waive his rights under the mortgage.
Affirmed.