Court Opinion

ID: 9445542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:32:33.395498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:19.357200
License: Public Domain

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Self-imposed judicial restraint prevents me from attributing inconsistency and unawareness to the General Assembly of Illinois when it amended the statutory provisions governing chattel mortgages some time after the Business Corporation Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 32, § 157.1 et seq. had been in effect. The generalization in Bristol v. Chicago & A. R. R. Co., 1854, 15 Ill. 436, was announced long before the Business Corporation Act required and defined registered office and registered agents for corporations and some time prior to the chattel mortgage provisions relevant here. The district judge recognized these important elements in his opinion, entered as findings of fact and conclusions of law, and I would affirm the final judgment brought here for review. Recording acts are especially sensitive areas at the state level affecting titles, liens and property rights and I would approach this type of case in a cautionary mood according considerable weight to a State’s modern legislative mandate controlling chattel mortgages in comparison with an early case interpreting the meaning of an old Illinois Practice Act provision giving rise to a question of venue for a suit against a railroad.