A.
WORTH
APPELLANTS; *June
(DEFENDANTS)...................
AND
MICHAEL
PETERSON
(PLAIN- TIFF) ... .........................
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME OF THE NORTH- WEST TERRITORIES.
For purposes of registration of deeds the North-West Territories is divided into districts, and it is provided Ordinance that registration of a chattel mortgage, not followed transfer of possession, shall only have effect in the district in which it is made. It is also provided that if the mortgaged goods are removed into another district a certified copy of the mortgage shall be in the registry thereof within three weeks from the time of removal otherwise the mortgage shall null and void against subsequent purchasers, etc.
Held, reversing the judgment in appeal, that the "subsequent purchaser" in such case must be one who purchased after the expiration of the three weeks from time of removal, and that though no copy of the mortgage is filed as provided it is valid as against a purchase made within such period.
APPEAL from a decision of the Supreme Court of the North-West Territories affirming the judgment at the trial in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant Hulbert was mortgagee of chattels under a mortgage from one McDonald and had registered his mortgage in the District of Edmonton. Mc- :-Sir Elz4ar Taschereau C.J. and Sedgewick, Davies, Nesbitt and Idington JJ.
Donald removed the mortgaged goods into the District of Calgary and, within three weeks from the time of such removal, sold them to the plaintiff Peterson. Some two months later the defendant Hulbert sent his co-defendant Worth, a bailiff, to seize the goods. Worth took them out of ]laintiff's possession, and the latter brought an action for conversion, in which he obtained a verdict for $125.
After the removal of the goods into Calgary District, Hulbert failed to comply with the provision of the Ordinance requiring a certified copy of the mortgage to be filed within three weeks, and his mortgage became void as against the plaintiff, provided the latter was a subsequent purchaser under the Ordinance. The court below held that subsequent purchaser in the Ordinance meant a purchaser subsequent to the removal and not subsequent to the expiration of the three weeks within which the copy must be filed. Beck K.C. for the appellant, having stated the point in issue the court called upon counsel for respondent to maintain the judgment appealed from. Masters K.C. for the respondent.
Registration Acts were passed to prevent frauds arising from mortgagors retaining possession of mortgaged property, and should be construed strictly.
Boulton v. Smith(1); Harding v. Knowlson(2); Olmnstead v. Smith(3).
The cases relied on by the dissenting judge below and by appellants in their factum of failure to renew a chattel mortgage on expiration of a year from registration and a purchase within the year are distinguishable. They were decided entirely on the ground