John S. Brown et al., Respondents, v. Henry Kiefer, Appellant

John S. Brown et al., Respondents, v. Henry Kiefer, Appellant. A chattel mortgage, given as continuing security to cover - present and future indebtedness, is valid not only between the parties, but when free from fraud as to creditors. ^Submitted December, 10, 1877; decided December 18, 1877.) This was an action of trover. The property formerly belonged to one Gescheidt who sold it to one Stansel, who conveyed it to his daughter, the wife of Gescheidt, who mortgaged it to defendant for $5,000, payable on demand; the mortgage was intended as continuing security. Defendant caused the mortgaged property to be seized by virtue of an execution against Gescheidt. At that time there was at least $2,000 due, and secured by the mortgage, payment of which had been demanded of the mortgagors. The court submitted the question of Mrs. Gescheidt’s title, and of good faith in executing the mortgage to the jury, who found for plaintiff. Held, that the mortgage was a continuing security; the court citing Robinson v. Williams (22 N. Y., 380); Fassett v. Rmith (23 id., 252); Miller v. Lockwood (32 id., 293); McILinster v. Babcock {26 id., 378), and that.plaintiffs, as mortgagees, were entitled to the property, and having demanded the property, were entitled to maintain the action. J. J. Perry, for appellant. Blumenstiel & Ascher, for respondents. [MAJORITY — Earl, J.,] Earl, J., reads for affirmance. All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent, Judgment. affirmed.