TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Henry

In re Henry, 60 F.2d 605 (E.D. Ky. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 18, 1932
Judges
Andrew, Cochran
Citations
60 F.2d 6051932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1369

Opinion of the Court — Andrewcochran

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ANDREW M. J. COCHRAN, District Judge.

This proceeding is before me on a petition for review filed by the National Cash Register Company complaining of an order of tbe referee disallowing its lien on a certain cash register sold by it to the bankrupt. The sale was made and lien given by a, conditional sales contract on January 12, 1929. This contract was not recorded until April 3,1929. The bankrupt lived in that portion of Corbin located in Knox county and did business in that portion thereof in Whitley county. The cash register was located at his place- of business. The contract was recorded in Whitley county and not in Kno-x county, the place of his residence. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has recently held that conditional sales contracts have to be recorded in order to be valid against creditors under section 496, Kentucky Statutes, the samo as before tbe Uniform Sales Act. The question here is whether the contract should have been recorded in Knox county, the place of the bankrupt's residence. I do not feel certain that it should, and think that possibly the recordation in Whitley county was sufficient. The tendency of the decisions of the Kentucky Court of Appeals is to require recordation of mortgages on personal property at the place of the residence of tho mortgagor in all eases. In no ease- has it ever been held that recordation in any other county was valid. And in the ease of Burbank & Burbank v. Bobbitt, 157 Ky. 524 , 163 S. W. 457, 459 , it was said: “It is, however, the residence of the mortgagor, and not the place of his business, that determines the place of filing.”

The question would seem to bo unimportant in this case, as it is stipulated that a large part of the indebtedness of the bankrupt, more than the value of the cash register, was created after January 12, 1929, and before April 3, 19-29. As to such indebtedness the lien is invalid though the recordation in Whit-by county may have been proper.

The order of the referee is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Burbank & Burbank v. Bobbitt, 163 S.W. 457 (Ky. Ct. App. 1914) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list