Kribbs v. Alford

• Decision Date: 03 June 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 811,120 N.Y. 519
• Parties: KRIBBS v. ALFORD et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

120 N.Y. 519

24 N.E. 811

KRIBBS

v.ALFORD et al.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

June 3, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fifth department.

J. H. Waring, for appellants.

J. Arthur Corbin, for respondent.

PARKER, J.

On the 15th day of May, 1880, one Johnson, then being the owner in fee of certain lands, executed and delivered to Thomas Argue an instrument in writing-which for convenience will hereafter be termed a ‘lease’-which conferred upon the latter the exclusive right to produce oil and gas from said land for a period of twelve years. For that purpose, it per mitted him to go upon the land, and make necessary erections. But, as to any other use, Johnson reserved the possession and right of enjoyment. It gave to Argue the right to remove any and all tools, boilers, engines, and machinery, also the casing to the wells and drive-pipe, if Johnson should refuse to pay a fair price therefor. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, Argue and his assignees placed upon the property engines, boilers, and other machinery necessary to carry on the operations for which the lease provided; and, in view of the intent of the parties as manifested by the terms of the lease and otherwise, these articles retained their character of personalty after annexation. Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287;Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28;Hoyle v. Railroad Co., 54 N. Y. 314, 324;McRea v. Bank, 66 N. Y. 489-495. In October, 1880, Argue assigned his interest in the lease to Albert Garrett and Adam Prentice. Thereafter, Adam Prentice, to secure the payment of $950.50, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a mortgage on his undivided interest in the lease, and upon all ‘his interest in the oil-wells now thereon, and to be by him placed thereon, with all his interest in the structures, fixtures, equipments, and appurtenances now on said lease, or to be placed thereon.’ On the 10th day of January, 1881, a copy of the mortgage was filed in the town-clerk's office, and thereafter it was duly refiled. Subsequently, and on the 24th day of August, 1882, Garrett and Prentice sold and assigned all their rights and interests under the lease to the defendants Alford & Curtis, who thereafter finished one well, put down two others, and added largely to the plant, by way of engines, boilers, and other machinery; and the substantial question presented by this appeal is whether the tubings, casings, engines, boilers, shafting, and other machinery purchased and placed upon the property after the giving of the mortgage are embraced within it. True, the appellant contends that his title to the chattels is not burdened with the plaintiff's mortgage, because, as he alleges, Alford & Curtis purchased in good faith, and without notice. But this claim is not well founded; for, while a search, which failed to disclose the existence of a mortgage, was timely made in the town-clerk's office, the referee has found, upon sufficient evidence to support it, that the mortgage was filed as a chattel mortgage in the prior town-clerk's office, and, within 30 days of the expiration of the year thereafter, it was refiled, with the statement required by statute. Alford & Curtis are therefore chargeable with constructive notice, and the lien of the plaintiff is not affected by their failure to find the mortgage.

In some jurisdictions, validity is denied to a contract in so far as it purports to embrace property to be acquired after date. The reason assigned for this holding is tersely stated in Perkins at section 65. ‘It is a common learning in the law that a man...