Leach v. Bald Knob State Bank

• Decision Date: 03 March 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 204.)
• Citation: 259 S.W. 3
• Parties: LEACH v. BALD KNOB STATE BANK.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

259 S.W. 3

LEACH v. BALD KNOB STATE BANK.

(No. 204.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 3, 1924.

Appeal from White Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Action by the Bald Knob State Bank against W. A. Leach. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John E. Miller and C. E. Yingling, both of Searcy, for appellant.

Culbert L. Pearce, of Bald Knob, for appellee.

WOOD, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant. The appellee, in its complaint, alleged that it was entitled to the possession of certain personal property by virtue of a chattel deed of trust executed by the owners of the property to the "Big Bend Plantation Company," a corporation, to secure certain notes, and that the appellee had become the owner of one of the notes for value before maturity; that the appellant was claiming an interest in the property also under a deed of trust which had been executed by the owners subsequent to the chattel deed of trust under which the appellee claims. The deed of trust under which the appellee claims was executed June 26, 1920, and had printed on the back of same the following: "This instrument to be filed but not recorded. Big Bend Plantation Company, West Point, Arkansas."

It was marked filed on the 10th day of November, 1920, at 8 o'clock a. m., signed, "Elmer W. Smith, Circuit Clerk and Ex Officio Recorder."

The deed of trust under which the appellant claims was filed on May 17, 1921, in the office of the recorder of deeds of White county, Ark. The deeds of trust covered the same property. The appellant had no actual notice of the claim of the appellee to the property at the time the deed of trust, under which he claims, was filed for record. The chancery court held that the deed of trust under which the appellee claims was superior and gave the appellee the right to the property included therein as against the appellant, and rendered a decree in favor of the appellee against the appellant in the sum of $252.78, from which is this appeal.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the words "Big Bend Plantation Company," printed on the back of the deed of trust following the words, "This instrument is to be filed but not recorded," were sufficient to cause the deed of trust, under which the appellee claims, to be filed in the recorder's office of White county so as to give the appellee a prior and superior lien on the property to the lien of the deed of trust under which the appellant claims.

Section 7384 of Crawford & Moses' Digest provides as follows:

"Whenever any mortgage or conveyance intended to operate as a mortgage of personal property, or any deed of trust upon personal property, shall be filed with any recorder in this state, upon which is indorsed the following words, `This instrument is to be filed, but not recorded,' and which indorsement is signed by the mortgagee, his agent or attorney, the said instrument when so received shall be marked `filed' by the recorder, with the time of filing upon the back of said instrument; and he shall file the same in his office, and it shall be a lien upon the property therein described from the time of filing, and the same shall be kept there for the inspection of all persons interested; and such instrument shall thenceforth be notice to all the world of the contents thereof without further record."

In Nix v. Watts, 121 Ark. 349, 181 S. W. 128, we said:

"The effect of our decisions upon this statute is to make any indorsement on the mortgage of the import required by the statute sufficient."

In Continental Supply Co. v. Thomas, 130 Ark. 287, 197 S. W. 683, we said:

"This court has held that a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required in order to create a lien good as against strangers, on the personal property described in a chattel mortgage."

In the more recent case of McReynolds v. First National Bank, 156 Ark. 291, 245 S. W. 819, the mortgage was indorsed, "This instrument to be filed but not recorded." After these words was the signature, "Citizens' Bank." In that case it was sought to reverse the decree on the ground that it was not shown that the bank signed the indorsement. Answering this contention, we said:

"It is true there is nothing in the indorsement to show that it was duly authorized by the board of directors. * * * The mortgage was delivered to the recorder of deeds `to be filed but not recorded,' as...