In a conditional sale, the purchaser has. merely a right to purchase, and no debt or obligation exists on the part of the vendor; this distinguishes such a sale from a mort gage; Weathersly v. Weathersly, 40 Miss. 462, 90 Am. Dec. 344 ; Gomez v. Kamping, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 77.
Where there is an absolute sale and a si multaneous agreement of resale, the tenden cy is to consider the transaction a mortgage; Barnes v. Holcomb, 12 Sm. & M, (Miss.) Fowler v. Stoneum, 11 Tex. 478, 62 Am. Dec. 490; Folsom v. Fowler, 15 Ark. 280; but not when the intention of the parties is clearly otherwise ; Forkner v. Stuart, 6 Gratt. (Va.). 197 ; Bracken v. Chaffin, 5 Humph. (Tenn.). 575.
It is not necessary that a written chattel. mortgage should be under seal; Gerrey v. White, 47 Me. 504 ; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59; Ping. Chat. Mort. 45; Gibson v. Warden, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 244, 20 L. Ed. 797; Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107.
A chattel mortgage of a crop must desig nate the land; W. L. Hurley & Sons v. Ray, 160 N. C. 376, 76 S. E. 234.
At common law a mortgage can be given only of chattels actually in existence, and belonging to the mortgagor actually or po tentially; Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. Roy v. Goings, 6 Ill. App. 162; Looker v. Peckwell, 38 N. J. L. 253; Williams v. Briggs, 11 R. I. 476, 23 Am. Rep. 518; Cook v..Corthell, 11 R. I. 482, 23 Am. Rep. 518; Bouton v. Haggart, 6 Dak. 32, 50 N. W. 197; and even though the mortgagor may after wards acquire title, the mortgage is bad against subsequent purchasers and creditors; but it is otherwise between the parties ; Lud wig v. Kipp, 20 Hun (N. Y,) 265; claims for money not yet earned may be the subject of a chattel mortgage ; Sandwich Mfg.. Co. v. Robinson, 83 Ia. 567, 49 N. W. 1031, 14 L. IL A. 126, and an elaborate note thereto.
In equity the rule is different; the mort gage, though not good as a conveyance, is valid as an executory agreement; the mort gagor is considered as a trustee for the mortgagee ; Williams v. Briggs, 11 R. I. 476, 23 Am. Rep. 518; 10 H. L. Cas. 191; Mitch ell v. Winslow, 2 Sto. 630, Fed. Oas. No. 9,673 ; Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 382, 24 L. Ed. 173; Schuelenburg & Boeckler v. Martin, 2 Fed. 747; Ellett v. Butt, 1 Woods, 214, Fed.
Cas. No. 4,384 ; Perry v. White, 111 N. C. 197, 16 S. E. 172. But see Moody v. Wright, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 17, 46 Am. Dec. 706; Hun ter v. Bosworth, 43 Wis. 583. Under this' principle all sorts of future interests in chat tels may be mortgaged; Jones, Chat. Mort. § 174.
The crops of specified land or the future young of animals could at one time be sold or mortgaged on the ground that seller had potential possession and passed legal title; Hob. 132, but the English Sale of Goods A6t, § 5, provides that where by a contract of sale the seller purports to effect a present sale of future goods, the contract operates as an agreement to sell goods. No excep tion is made in favor of property which at common law was the subject of potential possession. This seems to change the rule in England. The mere agreement to mort gage personalty subsequently to be acquired gave the mortgagee a lien upon the proper t9 ; 10 H. L. Cas. 191; [1903] 2 K. B. 367. It is essential that the mortgagee shall have actually advanced his money ; 13 App. Cas. 523.
Mortgages of future acquired chattels where the mortgagor is in possession are held invalid against an attachment or levy by creditors; American Surety Co. v. Mfg. Co., 100 Fed. 40; Tatman v. Humphrey, 184 Mass. 361, 68 N. E. 844, 63 L. R. A. 738, 100 Am. St. Rep. 562; Francisco v. Ryan, M Ohio St. 307, 43 N. E. 1045, 56 Am. St. Rep. 711; Girard Trust Co. v. Mellor, 156 Pa. 579, 27 Atl. 662; contra, Riddle v. Dow, 98 Ia. 7, 66 N. W. 1066, 32 L. R. A. 811; Cunningham v. Woolen Mills, 69 N. J. Eq. 710, 61 AtL 372. The general rule is that a chattel mortgagee has title, and so a mort gage on animals covers the increase, though not mentioned in the mortgage on the prop erty, partus sequitur ventrem ; Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Freeman, 171 U. S. 620, 19 Sup. Ct; 36, 43 L. Ed. 307; but in those states where such a mortgage gives only a lien, then it is limited to the property actu ally described; Demers v. Graham, 36 Mont. 402, 93 Pan. 268, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 431, 122 Am. St. Rep. 384, 13 Ann. Cas. 97; contra, First Nat. Bank v. Investment Co., 86 Tex. 636, 26 S. W. 488. See 19 Harr. L. Rev. 557, by Samuel Williston.