Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/235

 the specific property to the mortgage and cures any defect there may be through an insufficient description of the property. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, § § 178, 60; Chipron v. Feikert, 68 Ill. 284; Frank v. Miner, 50 Ill. 444; Brown v. Webb, 20 Ohio 389; Parsons Savings Bank v. Sargent, 20 Kan. 576.

There is no occasion for refiling a mortgage where the mortgagee has taken actual possession of the mortgaged property. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, § 294; Porter v. Parmlee,52 N. Y. 185; Dayton v. Peoples Savings Bank, 23 Kan. 421. The rights of the parties must be determined by the facts as they stood at the time the cause of action accrued. Bates v. Wilbur, 10 Wis. 415; Newman v. Tymeson, 12 Wis. 448; Case v. Jewett, 13 Wis. 498; Meech v. Patchin, 14. N. ¥. 71; Lewis v. Palmer, 28 N. Y.271. The defendant cannot take advantage of the failure of the appellant to refile its chattel mortgage. “One not having a judgment and execution is not a creditor within the meaning of the provision of the statute, ‘declaring that the omission to file a chattel mortgage renders it void as against creditors of the mortgagee and subsequent purchasers and mortgagees in good faith.” Jones v. Graham, 77 N. Y. 628; Thompson v. Van Vechten, 27 N. Y. 568; Paine v. Mason, 7 Ohio St. 198; Stewart v. Beale, 7 Hun. 405. Actual notice of an unrecorded mortgage of property is as effectual as constructive notice by record, against subsequent purchasers; and an attaching creditor stands in no better position. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, § 317; Allan v. McCalla, 25 la. 464; McLaurin v. Haupt, 9 \a. 83; Brown v. Brabb, 34 N. W. Rep. 403; LeNeve v. LeNeve, Leading cases in Eq. 202.

In replevin, defenses must be with reference to the time of the commencement of the action. Cobbey on Replevin, § § 764, 796 and 798; Patten v. Hammer, 28 Ala. 618; Coller v. Beckley, 30 Ohio St. 523, Michols v. Michael, 23 N. Y. 264; Allen v Crary, 10 Wend. 349. The pleadings evidence and judgment in an action. of replevin should be confined to the points and questions necessary to elucidate the right of plaintiff to the immediate possession of the property in question at the commencement of the suit.