Hart County Deposit Bank v. Hatfield

• Decision Date: 19 December 1930
• Citation: 236 Ky. 725
• Parties: Hart County Deposit Bank et al. v. Hatfield et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky

236 Ky. 725

Hart County Deposit Bank et al. v. Hatfield et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided December 19, 1930.

1. Chattel Mortgages. — Description of property in chattel mortgage should refer to present ownership, source of title, present physical

possession, usual location, or some particular description sufficient to identify it.

2. Chattel Mortgages. — Description in chattel mortgage of mules, cattle, farming tools, corn, tobacco, and hay held insufficient to afford constructive notice, though mortgage was recorded.

Description in chattel mortgage merely gave number of mules, number of bushels of corn, etc., and described farming tools by giving names of each piece respectively. Address of mortgagor and location of property, or other descriptive details, were not given, nor was ownership of property mentioned, nor county or state where it could be found.

3. Chattel Mortgages. — Where recording of chattel mortgage did not give constructive notice because of insufficiency of description, mortgagee did not obtain priority over execution lien (Ky. Stats., sec. 496).

4. Attachment. — Affidavit for attachment omitting to state amount affiant believed plaintiff should recover held fatally defective (Civil Code of Practice, secs. 194, 196).

5. Attachment. — Plaintiff in attachment suit may file amended affidavit to correct defect in original, or which attachment was obtained (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 268).

6. Attachment. — Attachment lien created by amended affidavit cannot affect right to lien previously acquired on same property by attachment or otherwise (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 268).

7. Chattel Mortgages. — Chattel mortgage need not be in writing.

8. Chattel Mortgages. — Chattel mortgage, though description was insufficient to make record constructive notice, is valid between parties and as against creditors or purchasers with actual notice of mortgage and property intended to be covered.

9. Chattel Mortgages. — Insufficient description in chattel mortgage merely deprives instrument of character as constructive notice based on recordation.

10. Chattel Mortgages. — Where attaching creditor, before filing amended affidavit to cure defects in original, had full knowledge of rights under chattel mortgage, lien of mortgage was superior to that acquired under amended affidavit.

Appeal from Hardin Circuit Court.

HAYNES CARTER for appellants.

FAUREST & FAUREST for E.T. Walker.

D.M. COOPER for Hatfield & Hatfield.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE WILLIS

Reversing.

This appeal presents a question of priority among several liens claimed by creditors of G.M. Rider. The Hart County Deposit Bank claims a first lien by virtue of a chattel mortgage. E.T. Walker bases his claim of lien upon an execution, and H.M. Hatfield asserts an attachment lien. The circuit court adjudged the mortgage subordinate to both of the other lien claims, and the bank has prosecuted an appeal. It is insisted that the bank did not obtain priority by virtue of its recorded chattel mortgage because the description of the property therein contained was insufficient to afford constructive notice of its contents. Another ground of invalidity is asserted, but the conclusions we have reached render it unnecessary to notice it. The description in the mortgage was as follows:

"Two black horse mules, nine and ten years old; two bay mare mules, nine and ten years old; two bay horse mules, old; Four hundred (400) bushels of corn; 1 Acre of tobacco; six (6) tons of hay; two (2) cows; all farming tools, consisting of two (2) wagons, three (3) cultivators, two walking plows, one riding plow, one tobacco setter, one disc harrower, one smooth harrower, one mower."

The mortgage failed to give the address of the mortgager, the location of the property, or other descriptive details. It did not expressly state the ownership of the property, or mention the county or state where it could be found. The usual method of describing personal property of the character involved is by reference to the present ownership, the source of title, the present physical possession, the usual location, or some particular description of the property sufficient to identify it or to distinguish it from other similar things. We are constrained to the conclusion that the description in the present instrument was not sufficient to conform to the established rule upon that subject. Hauseman Motor Co. v. Napierella, 223 Ky. 433, 3 S.W. (2d) 1084. Since constructive notice was not imparted by the recording of the mortgage, the holder thereof did not obtain priority over the execution lien acquired by Walker. Ky. Stats., sec. 496; American Nat. Bank v. John Van Range Co., 211 Ky. 849, 278 S.W. 133.

But a different question is presented as respects the attachment lien claimed by H.M. Hatfield. His affidavit for an attachment was defective, in that it omitted to state the amount the affiant believed the plaintiff ought to recover. Section 196 of the Civil Code of Practice provides that an order of attachment shall be made by the clerk of the...