Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Penn Cordage Co.

50 A. 459, 62 N.J. Eq. 624, 17 Dickinson 624, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 20
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedNovember 14, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 A. 459 (Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Penn Cordage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Penn Cordage Co., 50 A. 459, 62 N.J. Eq. 624, 17 Dickinson 624, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 20 (N.J. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

Grey, V. C.

The mortgage of the Penn Cordage Company to the Knickerbocker Trust Company, the complainant in this cause, securing the payment of $100,000, though executed with the formality of a chattel mortgage, was not, in fact, recorded as a chattel mortgage.

It was conceded at the hearing that the complainant’s mortgage, because not recorded as directed by the Chattel Mortgage act, was ineffectual as a chattel mortgage against the claim of the creditors of the Penn Cordage Company, mortgagor. No argument was advanced by the complainant asserting any validity in the mortgage as a chattel mortgage. As against the claims of the judgment creditors and of the receiver of the Penn Cordage Company, representing the creditors of that company, the complainant’s mortgage must be held to be invalid as a chattel mortgage.

[630]*630The mortgage made by the Penn Cordage Company to Constantine P. Ralli, dated October 4th, 1897, purporting to secure the payment of $50,000, also fails of efficiency as a chattel mortgage. Though expressed, in terms, to be a lien upon the personal property of the mortgagor company, no affidavit of the mortgagee, stating the consideration of the mortgage, or the amount due or to grow due thereon, is annexed to it, nor has it been recorded as a chattel mortgage, as directed by the statute. No claim or argument was made by -the holders 'of this mortgage, defendants in the cause, asserting its validity as a chattel mortgage.

The complainant’s mortgage being solely a real estate mortgage, this suit to foreclose it must be considered as a real estate foreclosure, and only those issues can be considered which are pertinent to the foreclosure of a mortgage upon land.

The only contested point in the cause arises from the dispute between the complainant and the defendants as to what portions of the equipment, machinery, tools and appliances of the Penn Cordage Company are real estate, and, as such, subject to the lien of the complainant’s mortgage, and what portions are personal property, and, as such, free from that lien. All the evidence offered and all the arguments presented have been addressed to the establishment or refutation of the conflicting claims of the complainant or defendants on this one question.

Elaborate proofs were taken in the case of Reilly v. Penn Cordage Company on this point. They have been accepted by consent as evidence in this cause, and some additional expert testimony has been presented on the hearing. The petition of the receiver in the Reilly v. Penn Cordage Case (accepted by consent as evidence in this cause) shows that the receiver in that case determined that certain articles named in schedules annexed to the petition were personal property. The complainant,. by notice, claimed that certain articles which the receiver has classified as personalty are, in fact, real estate. The receiver’s schedules have since by agreement of the_ parties been corrected and certain articles named therein as personal have been admitted to be real estate. But there still remain certain other machines declared by the receiver, or the other defendants, to be personal propertjr, which are claimed by the complainant to be realty and [631]*631to be subject to sale on this foreclosure. The present inquiry is directed, in the first'instance, to the ascertainment of the character of these disputed articles.

The Penn Cordage Company’s property is located in Beverly township, in Burlington county, and lies on the southerly side of the railroad which runs from Camden to Trenton. It consists of eleven buildings, some of brick, some of frame; in which the machinery and articles in dispute and the other equipment of the factory are placed. The larger structures are the three-story brick building, where most of the machines are located; the boiler, engine and repair shop; the rope-walks, the- tar-house, the office, wareroom, stables, shedding, &c.

The testimony shows that while these buildings are immediately usable for their present purpose, a cordage works, they are readily adaptable for many other kinds of manufacture. The only buildings peculiarly devoted to the manufacture of cordage, &c., are the. rope-walks. A rope-walk is a long; low shed with tracks running its entire length, carrying the machinery which makes the rope, the motive power being supplied from one end. The change of so peculiar a structure from the original use for which it was constructed, would be a sacrifice of -some of its value. The testimony shows that the end nearest the other buildings could be advantageously used as a storehouse.

The products of the works are rope' and binder twine, the latter of the kind used by the harvesting machines in the grain fields.

The following is a list of the machines which the complainant insists are real estate—describing them in its notice as “constituting part of the soil and as such subject to said mortgages on real estate”—and which the receiver, or other defendants, contend must be held to be personal property, with a summary of the evidence descriptive of tire disputed articles, their use, their relation to the land 'and their character as realty or personalty:

The scutcher. This is a machine used to clean hemp. It is constructed of wood with iron and steel posts, weighs probably one thousand two hundred to one- thousand five hundred pounds, is not built into the building in any way. It sits upon and is fastened to the floor by four lag screws and is run by an overhead [632]*632belting connection with the shafting. It might be used in any other cordage mill, and was, in fact, brought to Beverly from another mill in Brooklyn, where it had previously been run. It has no special adaption for use at the Penn cordage factory. By the testimony it appears to be doubtful if this machine is essentially necessary for use in a cordage plant.

The lapper. This is a machine having a cylinder with fine teeth on it, into Which short hemp is fed, which it rolls up into what is called a lap or bundle. It is constructed of wood and iron, weighs about one thousand five hundred pounds, is fastened to the floor by screws and run by overhead belt connection with the shafting. Either such a machine or one doing like work is essential to a cordage works. It is, however, usable in any cordage works and; in fact, came from the Brooklyn mill, where it had previously been used. It can be removed and set up elsewhere without injury to the building or the machine, and appears to be an article of manufacture and sale in quantities.

The breaker. This is the first machine that most of the hemp is put through, it “breaks it outY It is made of iron, and is a long and heavy machine. It probably weighs a couple of tons. It is fastened to the floor by eight lag screws, and is run by a belt and overhead shafting. The fastening to the floor is for the purpose of preventing it from jarring out of its place and to keep the tight belt from lifting it from the floor. In short, to keep it stationary while in use. The machine is similar to others of like nature used in other cordage factories, is not especially adapted to the Penn cordage factory, and could be removed without injury either to itself or to the factory.

The coarse spreaders. These machines are similar to the breakers, except that they are lighter and finer. .Each machine will weigh something over a ton. They are fastened to the floor with screws and operated by overhead belting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National Lead Co. v. Bor. of Sayreville
331 A.2d 633 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
O'Donnell v. United States
57 F.2d 533 (Third Circuit, 1932)
Hayford v. Wentworth
54 A. 940 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A. 459, 62 N.J. Eq. 624, 17 Dickinson 624, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knickerbocker-trust-co-v-penn-cordage-co-njch-1901.