A chattel mortgage on growing crops, giv en as security for a note and for future advances and merchandise sold, is valid; Souza v. Lucas (Cal.) 100 Pac. 115.
The registration statutes simply provide a substitute for change of possession. Be tween the parties, a change of possession is unnecessary ; •if there is a change of pos session, registration is not required ; Mor row v. Reed, 30 Wis. 81; Janvrin v. Fogg, 49 N. H. 340; Fordice v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 7, 28 N. E. 303. At common law an corded chattel mortgage is prima facie fraudulent and void as to creditors, where there is no change of possession, but such presumption may be rebutted; Pyeatt v. Powell, 51 Fed. 551, 2 C. C. A. 367; Frank houser v. Worrall, 51 Kan. 404, 32 Pac. 1097; See Frost v. Mott, 34 N. Y. 253; Kleine v. Katzenberger, 20 Ohio St. 110, 5 Am. Rep. 630.
Possession by the mortgagee cures defects in the form of the mortgage, or its execu tion; Springer v. Lipsis, 209 I11. 261, 70 N. E. 641; Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Orme, 5 Ariz. 304, 52 Pac. 473; so of defects in acknowledgment when possession is taken before a third party's lien attaches; Garner v. Wright, 52 Ark. 385, 12 S. W. 785, 6 L.
R. A. 715; and so as to the affidavit ac companying the mortgage; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. O'Marr, 18 Mont. 568, 46 Pac. 809; 47 Pac. 4 ; and as to any insufficiency in the description of the chattels; Frost v. Bank, 68 Wis. 234, 32 N. W. 110; Kelley v. Andrews, 102 Ia. 119, 71 N. W. 251. But if the mortgage is not recorded and is there by invalid, it is not validated by the mort gagee's possession as to the mortgagor's creditors whose debts were created or whose rights attached after execution and before possession taken; In re Bottle, 173 Fed. 597, 97 C. C. A. 547; Stephens v. Perrine, 143 N. Y. 476, 39 N. E. 11. Where the mortgagee takes contemporaneous possession and re tains it, recording is not essential ; Fordice v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 7, 28 N. E. 303; Brock way v. Abbott, 37 Wash. 263, 79 Pac. 924 ; and, though not recorded, a chattel mortgage is good against all the world if, after condi tion broken, the mortgagee takes possession; Garrison v. Carpet Co., 21 Okl. 643, 97 Pac. 978, 129 Am. St. Rep. 799.
A mortgage not filed under the statute is good against a subsequent bill of sale made by the mortgagor after the mortgagee was in possession; Smith v. Connor (Tex.) 46
S. W. 267. So of a subsequent chattel mort gage made by the mortgagor; National Bank of Metropolis v. Sprague, 21 N. J. Eq. 530; and an attachment subsequently levied against the mortgagor ; Baldwin v. Flash, 59 Miss. 61; Isenberg v. Fansler, 36 Kan. 402, 13 Pac. 573.
The English Bill of Sales Acts only re quired written chattel mortgages to be re corded, but they need not be written. The mortgage statutes on recording are collect ed in Jones, Chattel Mortgages, § 190 et seq. Some make the mortgagor's place of resi dence the place of record ; others the place where the property is situated at the time ; others require them to be reified every year, and so on. In general, innocent third par ties will prevail over the holder of a chattel mortgage or conditional bill of sale, unless the instrument has been recorded or the goods have been delivered; Funk v. Paul, 64 Wis. 35, 24 N. W. 419, 54 Am. Rep. 576. As a general rule, where a judgment is not a lien upon personal property; a mortgage recorded after judgment, but before execu tion, has priority ; Jones, Chatt. Mortg. § 245d. It is held that where a mortgage is not recorded nor possession taken by the mortgagee, it is good as against general, but net judgment, creditors; Stephens v. Meriden Britannia Co., 160 N. Y. 180, 54 N. E. 781, 73 Am. St. Rep. 678. A mortgagee who has not taken possession or recorded his mortgage immediately cannot protect himself against .the mortgagor's creditors; Roe v. Meding, 53 N. J. Eq. 350, 30 AU. 587, 33 AU. 394.
An unrecorded chattel mortgage is valid against a general assignment by the mort gagor for his creditors; Jones, Chatt. Mortg. § 244; but is invalid as to a receiver of the mortgagor because he represents creditors; In re Wilcox & Howe Co., 70 Conn. 220, 39 Atl. 163; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Clay Co., 7u N. J. Eq. 550, 67 Atl. 1078 (there being cred itors whose debts are a lien upon the chat tels); contra; Berline Machine Works v. Trust Co., 60 Minn. 161, 61 N. W. 1131; Ryder v. Ryder, 19 R. I. 188, 32 Atl. 919.