Court Opinion

ID: 8635897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:45:10.095177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:55.528338
License: Public Domain

DILLON, Circuit Judge.
I find, from the proofs, that the mortgage of August 28th was actually delivered; that there was no agreement that it was not to be recorded or kept secret, and that there was no understanding that the mortgagor might sell the property mortgaged in the usual way. I further find that tire mortgage was given to secure a bona fide debt, and that it was not made or taken in contravention of the bankrupt act. It contained a clerical error as to the amount of the note secured thereby, and for that reason the second mortgage on the same property was executed and acknowledged, November 15th, and recorded November 18th. The petition in bankruptcy was filed within two months after the execution and recording of the corrected and substituted mortgage, but more than four months after the execution of the first mortgage. No possession was taken under either mortgage.
The statute of Missouri (1 Wag. St. 2S1. $ S) is not essentially different, in the respect here involved, from the statute of Massachusetts; and I am of opinion that the district judge was clearly right in considering this case as governed by the judgment of the supreme court in Sawyer v. Turpin, 91 U. S. 114. I can perceive no solid grounds on which to distinguish them. The mortgagee’s security, upon the facts in the case, dates from the execution of the original mortgage, which was more than four months before the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Affirmed.