HART V. BAkNEY&'SMITB MA-NUF'a 00.
843
to require the service of personal notice upon the Central Railway Co.mpany, and rescinded as 'to Receiver Morrill. , MCCRARY, C. J., concurs.
HART,
Receiver, ".
THE BARNEY
& SMITH MANUF'a Co.May, 1881.)
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Kentucky. J.
WHAT RIGHTS THEY REPRESENT-RES JUDICATA-WHEN APPLICABLE-CoNDITIONAL SALES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY-GoV. ERNED :BY LAw OF PLACE WHERE PROPERTY SITUATED.
'The B. & 8. Co. sold B. two railroad cars under an agreement ,that the title should not pass until the balance of the purchase price ,was paid, and that in the event of a failure to pay the same, or of a seizure, of such property by legal process or otberwise, the vendor should have the right to take possession and sell the cars, etc. The contract was made,' the cars were delivered, and the purchase money . was payable in Ohio: but the cars were used on a, railroad in Kentucky, and the redelivery or reclamation was to take place there, as provided by the contract. The court found as a matter of fact that B. subsequently sold said cars, either to the C., F. & P. G. R. Co., or to Q. Creditors of Q. attached certain property, (including said two cars,) then on said railroad, making the railroad company a party. Hart (plaintiff herein) was appointed receiver, to take charge of the property., The B. & 8. Co. brought suit against B. alone, upon its contract of,conditional sale, obtained judgment, and seized I!aid two cars. In an action of replevin by Hart, receiver, to recover the same, held: (a), That the receiver, has all the rights, in this contest,to the property in controversy, any or all the partiel! to the suit in which he was appointed have. ' . (b) That the rights of the B. & S. Co. as against the receiver have not been changed by its suit and judgment against B. (c) That the rights of parties to this suit are governed by the laws of Kentucky, and not those of Ohio. 2. CoNDITIONAL SALES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY-SECRET TUCKY REGISTRATION ACT.
LIENs-KEN-
A conditional sale of personal property" or other agreement by which the vendor retains the title or a lien until the purchase price is paid, the vendee becoming,unconditionally bound for such purchase price, is within the registration act, and is not valid as against purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, or . creditors, unless recorded in accordance with its provisions. -Reported by J. C. Harper, Esq., ofthe Cincinnati bar.
FEDERAL REPORTER. 3. 8AME.
The contract of conditional sale not having been recorded in Kentucky, held,further, that the right of the attaching creditors of Q., and of the railway company, is superior to that of the B. & 8. Co. under its contract.
Action of Replevin. Motion for New Trial. Wm. Hendricks, for plaintiff. Lincoln, Stevens x Slattery and Stevenson x O'Hara, for defendant. B.4RR, D. J. In this case, by agreement of parties, a jury was waived; and the court gave judgment for the The defendant has moved the court for a new trial, and the respective counsel have argued the matter with much ability and earnestness. The amount involved is not large, but the questions are important, and it is due to the case, as· well as the counsel, that I should state the reasons for the conclusions which are decisive of the case. These conclusions, as heretofore filed, are substantially-(l) That the plaintiff, who is the receiver of the Fleming circuit court, has all the rights, in this contest, to the property in controversy, which all or any of the parties ,to the consolidation suits in which he wRsappointed have; (2) that the rights of. the Barney & Smith Manufacturing Company have not been changed as against plaintiff and those he represents by th'e suit and judgment in this court, in 1879, and hence defendant must rely in this action alone upon its contract 'with Berthourd, dated March 18, 1877; (8) that the rights of the parties in this .contention are construed and governed by the law of Kentucky, and not by that of Ohio; (4) that the right of the attaching creditors of Quintard, and that of the Covington, Flemingsburg & Pound Gap Railroad Company, as purchaser, is superior to that of defendant under its contract of ¥ar:ch 13, 1877. The first and second propositions are not seriously controverted by counsel, but the others are controverted most earn· estly by defendant's counsel. The facts which are proven, or fairly inferable from the testimony, are these: One E ·. N. Quintard, who was a non-resident of the state of Ken·
in 1871,
to
construct: and equbp; ready. irunning;1 paJ;ts of the "road. The!temig of the c6fttraet'ar'W lhot and' \there' is, qpQll,tberoa.d, WIl,S to be Qu.iQt8?f<!',s,or ·. OneA.'P. Berthourd held"Quintard's power of attorney, and miles ot this 1!oad ready for; tberolling...stook.,0ne engine ahd tender were-obtained, byiQtliIitard; Bertho'ura' s own,' for the ! T?is ilJjn these, words, viz.: '" <:,,,,,, ""! ;, ' :, f .J. '''This Cohipany, of 'Dayton', Ohio; o'fthe'firBt pari,l'il.nd fA.. Ii; second: f;a'ft':has agreed and. ,does\ part" witnesseth: The said party of ,.the cdritainedY to construct b'e'rebyagree (on terms,'aIid part, Ohib, o'n board fhr',and delivettl> the party of the clits;' on or before 15 ,1S'n tue tolio!wing 'F .'comIihiedpllEfseriger and baggage cat,' car;a:sAgreeil'hiaftl cars to be best m'l1terial and workDlanship,' bllbuilt"Rccording to l the stJeCificationll' fnl-hlshed by the'pmy of the first part;' and 'teceiveq. into thllqu!ilified the ,second upon the following t,ennsand conditions: ',' , ' , ..' ." ' , ' oiHFi1'si: tJpon: 'the conYtruction: o(satdcars, ready fin' delivery inti> the thesaid'pattyof 'second partyls, for each and every car, t6pay to the pltrtyof the firilt p-ari'the sum of twentynine hundred aAd thhty dollars ($2,930) for ,the lot,(twocars,j asfoUdws:' $1,450,32 in cash; and'l1ote at 60 this date for $1,479'.f68, indorsed at'Second National Bankiof:<Jinclnnati; by <Ill, S, Throop, Ohio, withotit'1hterest. AM for the deferred pliyments, to'execute and to sailfparty of the first part the negotiable promissory notes of sa.id' party of the second part, payable at Second' National Hank of dlncinnati, Ohio, And to include in each note thll rate of. no per cent, per annum on the amount of the deferred payment for which such '.:, ',' , note is given. " "'8eeond:No right, title; or interest in said cars, 'or ahV of them, (except provided) the,qualified possession, use, ahdcontrol thereof 8$ of tlle sec· is to pass from said party of the fi1,'st'part or ond part until all of said notes, arilt any notes given jn .renewal of any of them, shall have been fully paid.' :. . ; , , "Third. The s&id party of the second, part is to have possession and use given as above pl'ovi,ded, or their of, said cars so long as the said promptly paid at matu,rity,as they severally become due, antI they to keep all the said cars'in good 'order and repair i. and it
i
v.7,no.5-35
.. E. S. ' ',,', ".0. ::t>, ; The contract was executed in Ohio, and the cars delivered to Berth'ouril ori lroard'of oats at Dayton, Ohio. Defendant's agents, who made ·this' contract, knew at the time that these' oars w,E1retobe taken to Kentucky and run upon ,the CovingtOn; Flemingsbtlrg &, Pound Gap'Railroad. They were irnmeupon the Covington, Flemingsburg &; lettered so as to indicate :they bel()nged to The combined passenger and oar' 'was niarked on each side, near the top outside, the inside of ea.cli, with the letters "Covington.
s,s'd,:road of ;other to or eaiiIparty, or with every car injured'ot"destrdye/'f!O'Bl1tif 'enid' party of the said'second part '8»all.faif;to payJ",y, 'of: '8aid 'MUl8; 0t:!any .r:mewal· tureof; as: it oe-' or,wit,bJp}Odays or to be ,or othe:\Vise, then the sBldparty of the first part may, WIthout demand and WIthout lega4 :propess, 'resumhbe pbSire8sM:r(1f; aU Of such: cara, found, 118 , ,the sawe t;Q. theit; places c1f. at payt?;I?-,phio, the ,eXpellSe of theparty the at p\\blic or sMe,'afl:'er 10 chiyll"'W'ritten notiefi t)s'rty, and appJythe proceeds Wl the impaidndtes, ol'notJ;[tlI6iSll.id party dUhe second part stin rAAlainlpq;, Hl}q!e ,JoT' &nY' notes thern1;Jyunpai9; And 9rf therefore v"enlent for'tra:nsportatlOn', thai, Up'6h any default In payment as arore-. said, the said second party, on dtlmand of said :fif&t party, shall placeal}' of tracks!?! its ,road /loS said .first party /:l:t?lli the u.ee or ph¥ge, subject tosale, ",foresai\Jn by · ". l 'F p'rst slur1UQ.i! to deliverallpx, ourt4., ,Ini<;ase h)),e any th,e c.l?Ptract withfP the time nall1¢: 9f of purchased froml)ther therjlin,by cars. or frW? *e sh,ops, stdke of their men,or from pQ.rties!or any other party.of the first not .bel1.eld Jillble damageslt.r party of the. complete said contract within the earliest practicable lime thereaftllf. . ·,·Fij,tlJ". ,On,full of and thereof,but blrl'qre, thll.t!tle tq)ll,lJLjd .and t!lereof, ;shaU to. Q.,t;l,d. Y-/lst. in, saJd ,9f .the,l/cwpnd part, or whom-' speve.r tlfey may designate. , : .,,' dupUcatll this day of "Attest:. B. & S., I BARNE/Y & SMI'l'H MANUF'G (JOI, , "F.'E', SMIT,H, As.st. Sec'Y. By; E. P. 'BARNEY, Supt.
&,' Pound Gap;l',' The flat ;ear"wlts .nCovington,<Flenringsburg '& Ptiund Gap; No.' l.",i:DiHid & an attl1tlhment ifrom itlieFleming cit,cuitcourt agains'tQuiatard, making' l'ailroadcoinpahy a Qefendant and claiihiti\g ll.lien'6hits on the ·twentY-eighth '@f Marchi i877,and6ti .attachment of jihe; ;Covington; Flemingsburg:& Pound Ga.p'Railtoad"Company. Subsequently, 04Jhe'f 'creditors of Quintard sued out ·.. .. " .' ,'. ' .. ' l.·.. . . . .. 1 attachments,: and hadthetiilevied UlJon' 'the sa.rlie' cars and :9'1;her rolling..stockon the These'patties also 6faIrn' a property for theii' debts. . . lien on The FlemiI1g circuit court/on the fourteanth of April, 1877', appointed William F.'Falntteeaiver, and ordered him:to possession of the "i'll.ilway rolling-stock, and' all of its prop" This he did' by making' an agreement with Berthourd, dl'tedMay i2, 1877. In this agreernerit :Berthourd recogIiizedthe thi3 court;:and its right to the pt>ssession of the road and its agreed with him to run the road lipori certa.interms'th'erein' mentioned. The agreement, however, recited that it was, made nnder Frotest, and without intending to prejudice Berthourd'srights, or the rights of othets, in their claims to the locomotives, ·cars, or road. Subsequently, the various suits, all of alike-dharacter, were, by order of the Fleming circuit conso11dated. The road was run under the agreement of May, 1877, until February, 1879, when Mr. Fant resigned, and plaintiff, Hart, Was appointed in his'stead. This was on the ninth of February, 1879, ltnd' on the fifteenth of February, 1879, Hart made another agreement with Berlhoutd, in which he recdgnized Hart as receiver, being the possession of the road; and agreed to run it until March 1, 1879, at 12 M., and then to deliver to the receiver the stock, and ll.ll of the property on the track of said road and belonging to' it. ' Berthourd had, by' a previous agreement with Fant, agreed' that he would submit to the 'orders of the court. Berthourd says in his deposition that, in fact, he always possession of the 'carauntil' the twenty,
.
, : :.1' FEDERAL.,
,eightJ! of Februa,ry, :1879, ,they were levied uponby the mArshal of thjs court in the'sijit 9f Barney & Smith ManU.Jacturing C()mpaJilyagainst, ' This ma.y be, trueVas to. the manual of the l,egal and oon:the tElceivel' fi'omMaY' 12, 18ii', ElIse )3 ert hoqrd wa,s;trifling, witq !theFleming oiteuit court and to, hl\ve been.the fact. ,Tl;J.e sui,t qourtwa,s J:1reught 00, the tw-enty-eigbth 'of :Be'-ithQurd#lllo:p.a, and prosecuted to j ijdgmen a. .this court direoting the, mar" shaltR; t,he tOtthe. &$mithM!;lourtfacturing Company. the possessiQn oUlle cats its 1?i,'187;7,and marshal, under writ, took ,ot.them from the receiver, of th-e Fleming cjrcuit) whl? immediately sued him in that court and replevied, the Barney & SJllith Mlitnufacturing·ColJlpany ,were'Sllbstituted as defendant in· stead marshal, and upo,n.petitipll filed removed .the casl;l ,. this" court. .;This .suit was approved by an order, of to . n' ., ,the ,cir(mit ,CqUl;t, 'and thus it: is prope,rly in t:l:ti(l coprt;,,,,,, : 'c. '. It. ,is insisted that :righti!i n.qt to c..ars:remains in Berthourd;.and a!'! is,ip no to the plaintiff can: havenorjght to recover. If this betrQ,(;\ pl81intiff certainly has no c,anseof action,as .a party to the suit in the state cO\lrt.+ think, the :evidence shows I that t4es6'cars Berthourd, ,eitp.er to Quintard or the railroad compaJ1.YJ 'and in this case not ma.tter which. This is. shown by affirmative and negative e.vidence.. ,TIle negative evidence is the fact that Berthoud has. never set, up a.ny. ,claim to these cars in the pending Sll-jt.s in. state court,although those suits ,.have been pending since Ma rc ll' 1877. His own interest, as well as his friendltness to the defendant, the. Barney &. Smith ManufactUling Company, would have him to set up his claim it been a valid one. The affirmative ,evidence is the f!tct thourd, as the agent of Quintard, rendered, in February, 1878, I.,·· ". . . ' . _
HART V.
B'ARNEY& SMrtn"lIIANUF'a CO.
'1149
an account agaiJisHhe railroad h6mpanyand bbtairied a judgmeni inlliB In thisac'count h'if'in'cHldes ·two 'and "paid which are shown to be the ears" in coiit'l'oV'ersy." There is also .included -in, that account an item ofsixthousaoo five hundred dollars ($6,0001 'which fortp thl'l s.A9.wiJ;lg stock was then or had been transferred to the raill'oadcom-
l!aBY·r ,
"
'
.",:
as ,in this ,not only rights t,he ,creditorfi ments !lind suits, had at the of !!olso any rights which any ()f the parties ac.quir.ed during the pendtjJ?,\lY of tlw. suits in state ,until:t.4e ,Ear· ney & Smith .Manufactl,lring ,COlDpany:.brought,its, in thijJ court and seized' these cars, which may haye, been notice tp the receiver of defendant's claim.' If tpe railroad company owns these cars iUs as/a bona ing the judgment for the purchase money. notbeenpaid; ,or i( Quintard is. the owner they are the ,attaqpments against him, unless, of course, the contract of Mtliroh 13, 1877, gives the defendant a superior right. It:l ing which law governs this controversy must look to the place 6£ performance contemplated by the paities'to-the contract, and 'also to the nit'ture of the'contrtlversy.. The cars' were delivered in Ohio; and' cash :paymerit made there, andthe note was payable'in Ohio. But'the c'a.rswere delivered, to be taken to on ft,'raihoa'd there, and the' or of them was to be in Kentucky. The parties<contemplatedthat part of1the' tract, if performed,was 'tobe'performed in KentuokY. TKe law of the place of performan6e would be the controlling law, ordinarily,evenae between the parties t6 the contract. Hete the question is' whether located in Kentucky and seized there is subject to seizure, or whether a sale of this property made in Kentucky passed valid We think there can ,be no doubt that· the KentuC"ky law governs this
a"
a
MO controverflYr I' itf: or 'any l4;h. a In ,Y;. 4 r ;E;f(p. BE;!? by, tpe .c()unsel upon po4J,£! JudgEl Lo>yell.BIJ-YB :: held in Massachusetts vendor, whose, 0""0. 1& what thlllaw of w?uld evenif at the conditioWli sale'was the iitle'of an innocen:t purchaser; HiBchlJ:rnv. Cunney, 98 Mass. 149." : :1 . " It
of
In Rogers' Locomotive Works v. Lewis, 4 Dill. 158, the' oourt assumes th1l:t IMiSBotti'i the question of whether dr 'not !thelbeombtives were' Hable to Sel2lure under an exemption therailroadc6mpany, although thi:l c6ntract, which 'was very like' this one} 'showed the tiveswere .delivered in NewJarsey. The supreme court 'has tbat question; and it is not, we think, for discus. sion. Oreen'v. Vah Buskirk, 5 Wall. 310; Herveyv. R. [. Locomotive'Works, S.664. Kentucky'statri.te is in No deed of trust or mortgage co,nveying legal or equitable title to real or personal estate, shall be valid against a purchaser for a valuable consideration without noticetMreof, or against creditOls, until such deed shall be acknowledged or proven, according to law and lodged for record." Gen. St. § 10, c. 24, p. 256. .
.1
It is .conceded there are many decisions in which the courts decide that conditional sales are not within either the letter or spirit of registration acts like this one. We shall not attempt to review the decisions, but confine ourselves to a brief consideration of those of the Kentucky courts and the supreme court of the United States. The earlier Kentucky decisions decided that conditional sales were not within the registration aot. Baylor v. Smither's Heirs, 1 Littell, ,113; Patton v. McCane, 15 B. Mon. 595. But theJater decisions are to the efl;ect that agreemeJ;lts which are usually called conditional sales within the j],Ct, ;andthat any agreement which has for its object .the secm:ing of. a lien for the' purchase money, w.\!a,teve,:/ ma,.y be: the language, used, is 'also within the act In Vaughan y. Hopson, 10 Bush, 338;
HART V. BARNEY & SMITH MdiUF'G CO. r . ' : .., . ..:_.',;.',
551
Hopson sold Hull a mule al;ld liiil note, 'wrth for the purchase' money;:This note was anclwith it a 'memQrandum 'a.nnexed as 'follows:' ':', I, ' ,r'" ",_' . ,"\ if. :'t' "rl',
.i This note is given for'aJmule, tjlemuieis bound, or the title of the mule remains in untillfegeis ", ' "Mal/6,1869. I ! .,,' fl ,}" I ; ' WILLIAV RULLo" I '
Rull to Vaughan, Who Hopson au'ea , could not recover. ; ;. , f
bo'na jide .v... " i ' ;; I
r ! : Ii (
for the mule, ,r coun Slj,Y: J
-'
1,
\
it' without notice.' the 'courf'helli'· lier.: I .. I
,
.,,' . ,) · · IJ ,"
I
., In order to create a as, a purchaser for valuable'consideration wittJ,out notice, there must be, a convejance, or to tftat'e1!ect' ackll.o.,iedgifd'ahd lodged forTec'!, (I'"
'Ii
, In Greer VI>' OkUrch (J Go. ·18 Bush;' ChuMh &'00. 'nmde: agi'eementwith Mts. 'purported td' be a,rentihgtoher{t,f a piano;and'iri.'itshe \'vitg'glveb the iiege of buying it wIthin" a cerlain i 'The eOl1ri 'Concluded that tobe'Andwaa It'Slile,aitdihat a device to 'ileoutie7 the 'paYhlenf. of ca.lIing it the balance oHb$:,unpaiid purchase moneyj: Thil4r ;a:greemen't was not recorded, andiil\e Murt held; 'thati'a, from Mrs. Martin withO'Ut notice hada'supei'i'6r nght:to i Ohurch & Co.' under their contrae.t. 'The suprenielcoul't, in llJrvey: R. 1. Locomoti11e' Wlirk8';'93 m 8.- 671,' 'sustained the :title of Hervey; wbo wa.ethe purchaser of propeft'yseize'd' under an attachment against the 'vendee, tliifritilroad:. 'The locomotive works hadd'eliveredlhe property verf like t4e one executed itp,rovidedfor a renting, and was more. inrdetaiL See,also,:Greew v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. 807; ·c·"" The same court, in:; Iie1'y.ford term, 1880,- fully sustains the decision in Greer v. et 00. In that oase thec'ont'est was betweehan execution credit6r of the Keokuk & Kan'ilas'CityHail'way Company and the 'Jackson & Sharp . had deilv:: ered to'the railroad co'mpanyc'ars urrdet"an' agreement which J
'v.
*102 U. S. 235,
'\
a,lel1 se, but WlfS a,sale, aN"p}he ,lease was a, qevi,ce by 1V:lfi¥h party. tQ give and the other to money. The pt:inciple of these cases is that E!uch agreements, 'orq'oiJ,diti6nal sales, are intep.ded to retain 'a," secret for the unpaid purchase an, s,ta,tpte, The court 'has not ,1. ,_. that. aU' c,o'nd,itional sa,.ies, e"ep',a,s de,cided , :J') , _ ; .· :,' '.' -, ' ' a:?tIpst /ide, l+JCeinvalid, but have decIded: that, on the questI?n of w;plilther ,9;r,not istration act of a state includes a conditIonal sale, it will be dmh'dlled'bj _ oft'hat '::,' . ;' : n \ '.' ' \,', i: '.1; ,. .: .. 97U.. S. 235, as sustaining the defendant's contract; but I think :that ease in .. T4ere ,the', question ,'Was 'Ypat :taJi,e.,png.er ,prQ,visiQn Qf",his ( Whe <lourtheld"tij,at ]lJ.(dgaga !o! toolf, tights of the, m{}J:'t;. g(\<gor l and .$ubject to: Jlr:Q.Y,Jililu tha.t might pJ.10'peJ,'ty 'Ypen The carll in that case wel1e l¥ttered to show,th(].t they the prop(;ltty,of the bllt the was,p.ot, tmfl T,he oouD.§el, however,f t,hat the fLgreernent ofr the defendant is not to 'the objectionswhiohexisted in the agreements whic4the caurt· in the which we have been considering. lays much Bctre!ls.npon language of the supreme !':Purt v. Davis,in which that court say, in discussing the contract in that case:
?p,na l,
Jr .,
j,; ,
::
)
(.
a.
"If that contr,act'was:amere lease of the cal's to the railroad company, or ifit was only a.conditional sale which did:not pass the ownership until the condition should be performed, the property was not sUbject to levy and sale under exemption at the suit of the defendant against the company. "
This lQ,nguage, read by itself) would be misleading. It should be. read in connectioq, with other parts of the opinion, and ;when thl!'t is done it will be seen that the court meana by "only a conditional sale"0118 that is really a conditional sale both to the buyer and seller; that is, that the payment of
HART V. BAltNEt& SMrrH 'MANUF'G CO.
t58
1t/,on:ey; as well
as ihe passing of thetitte, 'is'tondi:
i'ional. . If,by . terms: agreeinerit,C, becomes liable unconditto1tiilly fot the ptirchas8'pn&e;Ci11tfiough by theagreement'@ maY'neyer get the of the property, then; .is ·an of. the 're$istrationatatute, 'its ptifpdse is siniply to lierl.·· THe" with.' 13erthdur4
faIle{] may' ,ther'eaftei'seUj'th'e public1o¥ 10 days' written l1l6tice th 'saId party, antt'lippl! the tlicseooil'd Jfli?lt· rema'Cnfn,q lwble Jor any balanc4 notes thereby unpaid." , ';I"C"";,'o
6f
[land
on
r
J] 8uc'ft.
This provision makes the: 'hound the purchase price, even though he never gets tile title and ownership of the propert.y.-Is not,-this conclusive evidence that the agreement which it is insisted evidences a conditional sale is merely a. to}'et!!<ina secl'Elt;·jltnd unrecorded lien on the property' sold? . The purchase' price of these cars was $2,930, ofl which;$[,450.132 was' paid in cash, and a 60 days' note for $1,479.68 given. The agree;nent provides tnat if Berthourd failed' to pay said note, or as it oqvitllin 10 daysthereaft,el, the BaTiIey & Smith Manufacturing Compahywould have the right to 'resume the possession of them sale. Berthourd, therefore, ill i,432.?2 in cash, and became unconditionally an:d,' :accl?,rping to the agre,ement" only obtained'theuss aLthasa cars for 70days. If he retained them longer it would be entiraly at the option of the Smith Manufa9turing Company., This that th'e reat' nature' or'the 'was a device to retain an. _. ..... I , j ".,," My attention' ',calMa. to' two opinions.of . . coutt !tPlleals, in which is 'lia& nio'dlfied if 'Co. 'One' bfthose' opinions is'to the effeCt a %ilt'i-ii,'ct. of renting petsomtlprdpetty, in which thepartyha:s'thapriv-
paia
,of
,-.,1..·.
liD'
.'.1
ilege ofpurchasing, if a gWt 1Vl'iting,.'be valid, and that a. reI,lter suc,4,1t. :pass jitleeve;n .to a bona fide IWticl;l,., other that, 'between, FJie 0figiD:a.l pl,trpies, i Qontracts, as that in (Jree'1',v. Church If givesa,valid,jien·.whichwill he enforce. abJe notice. and who right opiI,liop.s, do, I!Qt.JI!,qdify tb.e, lormer' ,iQuly' make plainer, the up0ll; rW.pieh, i" ;Whatever may be the in QtherqOuJ:ts.th.e which are 8,llthodtyin,this' deelltre agre«;l1pe,n.ts as tqe one bet.ween ,the & ,Smith Manufaetgring CoIllpany and the statutie' of .liens to be recorded. Motiqn for overruled. ,' u
, :. . il,\' '.'". .,.
!
,'j.?
'.
J\f!l
The 'PttJceedingswith 'referbJ1ce to I.deoogriizltnce and: itS' forfeiture iof the ¢clUl't, of: the reco'rds: Qf th,ll ,court, ,'ltlld t4e. imports 8'Uchabsoll1te verity that I1 c,lln it. ' . : . .
iV
2, SAMlll-SAME_SAME-EVIDENCr:
. ;... tiPOD: ,-, i1tllited' in the' l.Jaol'cl.l of, the:Jforfditute "i
fulCORD.
110 cohiradlct facts tit I thf) recogiiizli.nc&;'Aeld. in'\' ' ' 1 )'
r.r I
'i
Ie'; "'J': i i
:
!"'
','f;p,!"'
, ; - , . ",
'J/ _ ." c. ' .. '
)" "
:,:o'
,"
the o0tlrt, ;. ,:" , i';'.
without a j u r Y " i l I . jJhan?1;irw
\ ','
;,'; I"
":.i,i
.is
JIar!y Tr,A;m.