Court Opinion

ID: 9307265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:18:04.789873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:58.086871
License: Public Domain

Application for a Rehearing.
I have given careful attention to the petition for a rehearing of this case, but without discovering that any of the facts were overlooked or misapprehended, and w’ithout being convinced of having erred in the decision. This new argument admits that, although the petitioner may have given credit to the mortgagor on the faith of its ownership .of unincumbered personal property, the mortgagor could subsequently give a valid chattel mortgage upon said personal property to secure an older debt, and, while making this admission, denounces the mortgage in question as being void. The whole argument is a repetition of the petitioner’s contention on the former hearing, namely, that, because the mortgage was void at the time of the credit given by the petitioner, it is impossible to make it valid by subsequent compliance with the requirements of the statute. The term “void” is regarded throughout the argument as being synonymous with “unlawful,” and as if the effect of the statute was to stamp a void instrument' as a guilty thing, like a counterfeit coin or treasury note, to be perpetually denied recognition in legal proceedings. In this I disagree with the petitioner and his counsel. This mortgage, as a lien upon personal property, at the time the mortgagor became indebted to the petitioner, was simply void as to creditors, for lack of an affidavit, and failure to have "it recorded in a particular boob. But a blank piece of paper,,would be void, not only as to creditors, but totally void as to everybody, and not in any sense to be regarded as possessing virtue denied to this incomplete and imperfect instrument. Now, the effect, as to the petitioner, of taking the imperfect instrument, and making it a valid mortgage, is precisely the same as to have taken a blank piece of paper, — a totally void thing, — and made a chattel mortgage, by supplying all of the requisites. The mortgagee took its chances with the general creditors until the instrument was made complete, so that in this material point the case differs from the case of Willamette Casket Co. v. Cross Undertaking Co. (Wash.) 40 Pac. 729. The decision heretofore given will be adhered to. •