Fitch v. Humphrey

1 Denio 163

Opinion

By the Court, Jewett, J.

The single question in this case is, whether the plaintiff-had renewed this mortgage, under which he claimed the property, in the manner prescribed by the statute. It is enacted, (Stat. 1833, p. 403, § 3,) that “ Every mortgage filed in pursuance of this act shall cease to be valid as against the creditors of the person making the same, or against subsequent purchasers or mortgagees, in good faith, after the expiration of one year from the filing, thereof: unless within thirty days next preceding the expiration of the said term of one year, a true copy of such mortgage, together with a statement exhibiting the interest of the mortgagee in the property thereby claimed by him, by virtue thereof, shall be again filed in' the office- of the clerk or register aforesaid, of the town or city where the mortgagor shall then reside.” It is insisted that the endorsement, “ re-filed and renewed the 6th day of February, 1844,” is a compliance with the provision of the statute requiring a true copy of such mortgage, together with a statement exhibiting the interest of the mortgagee in the property therein claimed by him by virtue thereof to be again filed, &c. The language of the act is so clear as not to admit of an illustration: at most it ic but a filing, without any statement of the interest of the mortgagee in the property mortgaged—in short, is not a compliance with the provisions of the act.

The judgment of the common pleas must be affirmed.