Sherman v. Union County Wholesale Tobacco & Candy Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1931
• Citation: 155 A. 615
• Parties: SHERMAN v. UNION COUNTY WHOLESALE TOBACCO & CANDY CO.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

155 A. 615

SHERMAN

v. UNION COUNTY WHOLESALE TOBACCO & CANDY CO.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 11, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under section 4 of the Chattel Mortgage Act (1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 463 as amended by Supp. to Comp. St. 1925-1930, p. 211, § 36—4), not only must the mortgage have an affidavit annexed thereto stating its consideration, but also as nearly as possible the amount due and to grow due thereon. To omit to state either the consideration or the amount due and to grow due thereon makes the affidavit defective and the chattel mortgage void as against creditors.

Suit by Max R. Sherman against the Union County Wholesale Tobacco & Candy Company. Decree for complainant.

Harry J. Weiner, of Elizabeth, for complainant.

Frederick Siman, of Elizabeth, for defendant.

BERRY, Vice Chancellor.

The defendant holds a chattel mortgage executed by Herman Rosenman on October 16, 1930. The complainant also holds a chattel mortgage of Rosenman executed on November 25, 1930, and covering the same chattels as are covered by the defendant's mortgage. By this bill complainant seeks to restrain the defendant from taking possession or disposing of the mortgaged chattels and challenges the validity of defendant's mortgage mainly on the ground of insufficiency of the mortgagee's affidavit. The defendant's mortgage is not conditioned for the payment of any specific sum; the condition of the mortgage being as follows:

"Upon condition, that if the said party of the first part, shall and do well and truly pay unto the second part, its successors and assigns, Such sum as is now due or may hereafter grow due from the party of the first part to the party of the second part, as follows:

"This mortgage is given as security for the payment of merchandise this day sold by the party of the second part to the party of the first part, and is also given to secure the payment of any other merchandise which may be sold by the party of the second part to the party of the first part from time to time from and after the date hereof, it being intended that this chattel mortgage is given as security to the party of the second part for any and all indebtedness now due or which may hereafter grow due from the party of the first part to the party of the second part, irrespective of the amount of such indebtedness."

The affidavit of the mortgagee attached to the defendant's chattel mortgage is as follows:

"State of New Jersey, County of Union—ss.: "Hymie Kelner, Treasurer of the Union County Wholesale Tobacco & Candy Co., the mortgagee in the foregoing mortgage named, being duly sworn, on his oath, says that the true consideration of said mortgage is as follows, viz.:

"This mortgage is given as security for the payment of merchandise this day sold by the party of the second part to the party of the first part and is also given to secure the payment of any other merchandise which may be sold by the party of the second part to the party of the first part from time to time from and after the date hereof, it being intended that this chattel mortgage is given as security to the party of the second part for any and all indebtedness now due or which may hereafter grow due from the party of the first part to the party of the second part irrespective of the amount of such indebtedness, and deponent further says that there is due and to grow due on said mortgage the sum of money equal to the amount of merchandise this day sold by the party of the second part to the party of the first part and such other monies as may grow due from time to time as above stated from the date after such payment of such monies become due and payable.

"Hymie Kelner.

"Sworn and subscribed this 16th, day of October A. D. 1930 before me, at Elizabeth, N. J.

"Frederick Siman,

"Master in Chancery of N. J."

Section 4 of the Chattel Mortgage Act (1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 463, amended Supp. to Comp. St. 1925-1930, p. 211, § 36—4) provides that chattel mortgages, where there is no change of possession of the mortgaged chattels, "shall be absolutely void as against the creditors of the mortgagor, and as against subsequent purchasers and mortgagees in good faith, unless the mortgage" has annexed thereto an affidavit "stating the consideration of said mortgage and as nearly as possible the amount due and, to grow due thereon." (Italics mine.) If the italicized words mean anything, and I believe they do, then the defendant's mortgage is void as to creditors of the mortgagor. From an exhaustive examination of the reported decisions of the courts of this state, I have reached the conclusion that the correct rule to be applied here was stated by Chancellor Walker (then Vice Chancellor) in Simpson v. Anderson (N. J. Ch.) 70 A. 696. In that case, at page 699, of 70 A., he said: "Not only must the mortgage have an affidavit annexed thereto stating the consideration of the mortgage, but also as nearly as possible the amount due and to grow due thereon. To omit to state either the consideration or the amount due and to grow due renders the affidavit defective, and makes the chattel mortgage void as against creditors."

And he held that the affidavit there under consideration did not comply with the requirements of the statute. This decision was reversed by the Court of Errors and Appeals; the case on appeal being reported in 75 N. J. Eq. 581, 73 A. 493. The appellate court held that the affidavit and the mortgage itself should be read together, and that, when so read, the defects in the affidavit were cured by what was contained in the body of the mortgage. But the correctness of the rule of law as stated by the Chancellor was not challenged. The court merely found that the affidavit, when read together with the mortgage itself, complied with the requirements of the statute. The rule as stated by the Chancellor seems to me to be sound, as I can see no more excuse for disobeying the mandate of that portion of the statute which requires the statement of "the amount due and to grow due thereon" than for disregarding the requirements of any other portion of the act. While the earlier decisions in this state held the affidavit of consideration a "statutory requirement of considerable technicality" (Howell v. Stone & Downey, 75 N. J. Eq. 289, 71 A. 914), and later decisions held that an honest and substantial compliance with the statute is all that is necessary (Howell v. Stone & Downey, supra; Breit v. Solferino, 77 N. J. Law, 436, 72 A. 79; Hunt v. Ludwig, 93 N. J. Eq. 314, 116 A. 699, 700, affirmed 94 N. J. Eq. 158, 118 A. 839: Fitzpatrick v. Barnard Phillips & Co., 95 N. J. Eq. 363, 123 A. 245, 246; Metropolitan Store & Saloon Fixture Co. v. Albrecht, 70 N. J. Law, 149, 56 A. 237; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Stolzenbach, 75 N. J. Law, 721, 68 A. 1078, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 703, 127 Am. St. Rep. 822; Shupe v. Taggart, 93 N. J. Law 123, 107 A. 50), the act is mandatory in its requirements. In Graham Button Co. v. Spielmann, 50 N. J. Eq. 120, 24 A. 571, 572, Vice Chancellor Van Fleet said, "The command of the statute is imperative," and in Field v. Silo, 44 N. J. Law, 355, at page 356, Justice Van Syckel said, "The act * * * makes an affidavit, stating the consideration of the mortgage and the amount due...