In re Petition of Shannahan & Wrightson Hardware Co.

• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: RICHARDS, J.
• Citation: In re Petition of Shannahan & Wrightson Hardware Co., 118 A. 599, 32 Del. 37 (Del. Super. 1921)
• Decision Date: 14 October 1921
• Parties: IN RE PETITION OF THE SHANNAHAN & WRIGHTSON HARDWARE COMPANY, of Talbot County, a corporation of the State of Maryland

118 A. 599

32 Del. 37

IN RE PETITION OF THE SHANNAHAN & WRIGHTSON HARDWARE COMPANY, of Talbot County, a corporation of the State of Maryland

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

October 14, 1921

Superior Court for New Castle County, September Term, 1921.

Petition to draw money out of Court. Prayer of petition granted.

An automobile truck belonging to one Alexander W. Murphy, a resident of Dorchester county, Maryland, while temporarily in this state, in the usual course of the owner's business was seized and subsequently sold under a foreign attachment judgment procured in this county. At the time of such seizure and sale, said truck was covered by a chattel mortgage for $ 1,828.99 with interest from September 1, 1921, in favor of the petitioner, duly recorded in Dorchester county, Maryland and constituting a valid lien on said truck in that State.

The net proceeds arising from the sale of said truck being claimed by both the Maryland chattel mortgage and the Delaware foreign attachment creditor, the sheriff paid the amount thereof, or $ 318.35 into this court.

The fund being insufficient to pay either claim, the petition filed necessitates the determination of the question whether the Delaware foreign attachment creditor, or the Maryland chattel mortgage creditor through comity, is entitled to the proceeds arising from the sale of said truck.

The attorney for the Delaware foreign attachment creditor cited Donald v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 534, 73 Am. Dec. 431; Corbett v. Littlefield, 84 Mich. 30, 47 N.W. 581, 11 L. R. A. 95, 22 Am. St. Rep. 681; Snyder v. Yates, 112 Tenn. 309, 79 S.W. 796, 64 L. R. A. 353, 105 Am. St. Rep 941; Best v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S.W. 334; Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 20 S.Ct. 708, 44 L.Ed. 856; Section 2852, Rev. Code 1915; State v. Nichols, 51 Wash. 619, 99 P. 876; Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A. 131, 70 L. R. A. 568.

Prayer of petition granted.

J. Frank Biggs for petitioner.

Alexander Jamison for respondent.

HEISEL and RICHARDS, J. J., sitting.

OPINION

RICHARDS, J.

In 11 Corpus Juris, p. 424, we find the following:

"The great weight of authority is to the effect that a chattel mortgage, properly executed and recorded according to the law of the place where the mortgage is executed and the property is located, will, if valid there, be held valid even as against creditors and purchasers in good faith in another state to which the property is removed, by the mortgagor, unless there is some statute in that state to the contrary, or unless the transaction contravenes the settled law or policy of the forum."

This principle is supported in the following cases: Shapard v. Hynes, 104 F. 449, 45 C. C. A. 271, 52 L. R. A. 675; Handley v. Harris, 48 Kan. 606, 29 P. 1145, 17 L. R. A. 730, 30 Am. St. Rep. 322; Creelman Lumber Co. v. Lesh, 73 Ark. 16, 83 S.W. 320, 3 Ann. Cas. 108; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Ohio St. 134, 70 Am. Dec. 62; Smith v. McLean, 24 Iowa 322.

In Langworthy v. Little, 12 Cush. 109, Chief...