Pleasanton v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 November 1900
• Citation: 47 A. 1025,91 Md. 673
• Parties: PLEASANTON v. JOHNSON (two cases). SAME v. PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK OF MIDDLETOWN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

47 A. 1025

91 Md. 673

PLEASANTON v. JOHNSON (two cases).

SAME v. PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK OF MIDDLETOWN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 15, 1900

Appeals from circuit court, Kent county; James A. Pearce, Frederick Stump, and William R. Martin, Judges.

"To be officially reported."

Intervention by Hiram M. Pleasanton in separate attachment suits by Anthony H. Johnson and the People's National Bank of Middletown, Del. From judgments against intervener, he appeals. Affirmed.

Lewin W. Wickes and Walter J. Willis, for appellant.

Jas. P Gorter and Hope H. Barroll, for appellees.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.

BOYD J.

Three attachments were issued out of the circuit court for Kent county against Leonard G. Vandergrift, Jr., and were levied on personal property in that county which was included in a mortgage previously executed by Vandergrift to Hiram M Pleasanton, both of whom are residents of the state of Delaware. Mr. Pleasanton intervened in the attachment cases as claimant, and the question presented is whether the mortgage, which was executed in Delaware, in accordance with the laws of that state, on personal property then in this state, is valid against the attaching creditors of the mortgagor, it not having been executed in accordance with our statute. The property is described as "all the tools implements, and fixtures located in the building at Sassafras, in Kent county, state of Maryland, and used for the purpose of carrying on the creamery business at the aforesaid place (Sassafras), consisting of one twelve horse power boiler, one eight horse power engine," and other articles named. The mortgage does not contain an affidavit that the consideration is true and bona fide as therein set forth, as required by the statute. The cases were brought to this court in one record, there being no difference in the facts, excepting that the plaintiff in two cases is a resident of Maryland, while the other is a national bank located in Delaware; but the residence of the attaching creditors is immaterial under the view we take. The situs of personal property is, for most purposes, the domicile of the owner, and hence this court has in a number of cases recognized the validity of assignments for the benefit of creditors, executed in other states in accordance with the laws thereof, to pass title to personal property in this state. Houston v. Nowland, 7 Gill & J. 480; Wilson v. Carson, 12 Md. 54; Railroad Co. v Glenn, 28 Md. 287; Moore v. Trust Co., 82 Md. 288, 33 A. 641. But in the case last cited it was said: "There can be no doubt that each state has the right to regulate the transfer of personal property owned by nonresidents, but situate within its limits, and it is held that, although a foreign contract or assignment may be valid in the state where made, it will not be enforced in another, if repugnant to the law or policy of the latter state;" and the same doctrine is announced in other cases. The fact that the mortgagor and mortgagee reside in the state where the mortgage is excecuted does not prevent the application of this principle. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139, 18 L.Ed. 245; Hervey v. Locomotive Works, 93 U.S. 664, 23 L.Ed. 1003. It is undoubtedly the policy of this state to require mortgagees to make affidavit of the bona fides of the consideration mentioned in mortgages in order to give them priority over creditors. Our statute requiring that to be done has proven to be a wise and salutary one, for there have been instances where the...