Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/812

 800 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the Company then bas the legal right to acquire. If it em- braces property which the oompanyhad no oorporate aathor- ity to acquire at the time of the mortgage, it cannot be sus- tained, either upon the accretion idea, or that it is an executory contract which equity will enforce ia the nature of a specifie performance. �It is, however, not necessary to decide this question in this case ; but because the company had no right, as far as the croBS-bill shows, to acquire the Maysville & Big Sandy Line without the concurrence of ,the stoekholders, and the concur- rence is not alleged, and because the Maysville & Big Sandy Line is not intended to be conveyed as future to be aeqiiired property, the demurrers should be sustained. �Order entered sustaining demurrers to cross-bill of Farm- ers' l/oan' & Trust Company, and giving leave to amend, and direoting "the complainant to redraft his pleadings so as to confoiJm to the equity practice of this court."* ���Cbooks, Assignee, v. Stuabt and others. {Circuit Court, B. Jowa. May 18, 1881.) �1. Chattel Mobtgage— Subsequent Cbeditobs— Iowa Statute. �UDder the statute of Iowa, as construed by the highest court of that State, an unrecorded mortgage of chattels, of which the mortgagor retains possession and control, is valid as against creditors who receive notice at any time before obtaining a lien by levy or otherwise. �2. SAME — SaME— COMMON Law. �At common law a mortgage of chattels which permits the mort- gagor to retain possession of the property and deal with it as his own, is void as against a crediter who becomes such without notice of the mortgage. �3. CoNSTBUCTioN OF Statute— CoNFLiCT dp Laws. �In the construction of a statute of a state this court is bound by the construction placed upon it by the courts of that state, but the �*The suit was originally brought in the Mason circuit court of Eea- tueky, and upon application of the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company was removed to the United States circuit court. The complainant had flled a "petition" under the Kentucky Code Practice. — [l&iP. ��� �