Briggs v. Mette

• Decision Date: 28 October 1879
• Citation: 3 N.W. 231,42 Mich. 12
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CATHARINE BRIGGS v. PHILIP A. METTE.

3 N.W. 231

42 Mich. 12

CATHARINE BRIGGS v. PHILIP A. METTE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1879

In order to preserve the lien of a chattel mortgage against subsequent mortgages, even though filed before its expiration, the renewal affidavit required by section 4709 C.L., must be filed. Renewal affidavit filed in this case held insufficient.

Error to Wayne.

Henry M. Cheever, for plaintiff in error.

Lucius H. Collins and Fred. A. Baker, for defendant in error.

GRAVES J.

By the terms of a lease from Waldo M. Johnson to Sarah Cheney executed by both parties October 1, 1876, Mrs Cheney covenanted to pay Johnson $1,940 rent in advance payments at the rate of $53 per month from October 1, 1876, to May 1, 1877; and at the rate of $61.33 per month from May 1, 1877, to May 1, 1878; and at the rate of $69.67 from May 1, 1878, to May 1, 1879.

The instrument embraced a clause by which Mrs. Cheney mortgaged to Johnson her personal property on the premises to secure these payments, and was duly filed as a chattel mortgage, January 8, 1877.

Subsequently, and on the eighth of September, in the same year, Mrs. Cheney gave her mortgage to Catherine Briggs on the same property for $600, payable in ten months, with interest at ten per cent. This was filed.

January 3, 1878, Johnson filed an affidavit to renew his security for another year.

July 8, 1878, Mette, acting on behalf of Johnson, took possession of the property and Mrs. Briggs replevied it the thirteenth.

The court found against her and she alleges error. Her counsel claims that Johnson's renewal affidavit was not in compliance with the statute, and that his mortgage consequently ceased to be valid as against her. Section 4709 C.L. On the other hand it is contended that the affidavit was good; but even if it were not that the defect gave no advantage to Mrs. Briggs. In taking the last position reliance is placed on certain decisions in the state of New York, where the courts have ruled, on a statute resembling our own, that an omission to renew a chattel mortgage does not affect its force against purchasers or mortgagees intermediate the original filing and the time prescribed for renewing; and under this ruling, as will be observed, it would be immaterial whether Johnson's renewal affidavit was good or bad. Without dwelling on the distinction between our statute and that of New York, which is somewhat marked, the opinion is held...