Opinion ID: 1473139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Des Moines & Ft. Dodge First Mortgage.

Text: This mortgage bears date January 1, 1905, and the company was authorized to mortgage after-acquired property; hence the question remains: Did it in fact do so? The lower court, after reviewing the provisions of this mortgage, held that there was no after-acquired property clause in the granting language of the mortgage, and no apt words, either there or elsewhere in the mortgage, from which an intention to mortgage after-acquired property could fairly be inferred, and that there was no mortgaging of income, and that there was no covenant to replace equipment. It seems clear that the language of this mortgage compels this construction. The contention that there is in the mortgage a granting of income based on the provision as to bills receivable, traffic balances and claims, and the provision under section 2 of Article 3 entitling the trustee to collect and receive tolls, earnings, income, etc., is not tenable. This provision relates only to the situation after default. What has heretofore been said with reference to presumptions or inferences is equally applicable to this mortgage  expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The parties have not relied upon inferences and presumptions, but have definitely, and with particularity, described the property to be covered by the mortgage.