Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/563

 HAET V. BAHNBT & SMITH MANOf'g CO. 6^1 Hopson sold Hull a mule and executed his note, with security, for the purchasemoney. Thie note -«ras delivered, and with it a memorandum annexed as folio ws : ' ,,. " This note is given for a mule, and t)ie mule, is bound, or the title of the mule remairis in Hopeon, untii h'e gets hlo inoney; "jl/ay 6, 1869. i !  fi- '; Wiliaxu Bxtlu" ■ Hull received ^os's^'SbioII ui the mule and aftefwards sold it to Vaughan, Who wae' a hona jide purchaser without notice. Hopson stied Vaughan for t& mule, ftiid the c6ur;t"hel'd IIe; eould not recover. Thi'e eourf say : '. . ,' . " In order to create a lien,.fo^ the purchase p^ice of chattels, as agaipst a purchaser for valuable ' consideration withoui notice, there must be a conveyance or moliigkee t6 t&at'effect acWbVieii^tf afad lodged Wrbc- ordas provided liy,the *atqtifc.',^>'i /!; :; fi .: i ' i) In Oreer x^Chmdi e Co. 18 Bush, 430; Chtitch & Ob. nmde- an agieement with Mts. Martin'/wliich', «^u'its facei purported fo be a rentihg to her'joflf apikno, an^iiiitBlieWas'^veii the priv- ilege of buyitog it withiri a certaiti timei'' The court "eoncluded tbftt the agreement-W^feintended tb betod ivas a eale, aud thai cftlling it a renting was a device to SeciiA 'the 'pai^ineht of the balance of the; nnpaiid purchase iaoney; Thie agreement was not recorded, and i#h^ court lield^ that'a pnrclirasfer from Mrs. Martin without notice had a'supe!i'i^'rightt6'Church & Go.- under their coiltrae^. ' The suprenle'couit, in jffervey v. R. I. Locomotive Works; 9Z U.' 8. 67t, 'sustained the title of Herveyj -wbo was the purchaser of proplefty seized under an attachment against the vende©, the railroad. The locomotive Works had delivered the prdperty ilnder'fth agreement very like the one executed byBerthourdj ^^(sept that it pyovided for a renting, and was more, in ^detail. See, also, Greenf v. Van Bmkirk, 5 Wall. 307. ' ■■■ ' "\^ ' ' ; ;, The same court, iix'Heryford v. Davis, decided Ootober term, 1880,* fully sustains the decision in Greer v. Church a Go. In that oase the contest was betweeli an execution crfeditbr of the Keokuk & Kansad City Eailway Company and the Jackson & Sharp Company. That eompaiiy had deliv- ered to the railroftd co'm'pany c'ars under' an agreement which «I02U. S. 235.