*1 TILTON. TUCKER v. officer; forgery of funds of a perhaps zlement making corporation intent false in the books of witli entries the corporation defraud the and to cheat and defraud the corporation; conspiracy to answer under oath, if the defendants were called plaintiffs; upon demur, themselves from discovery. defendants protect But called to answer under our the defendants not being upon practice, a will be considered as mere oath, pleading, their answer truth without accordingly, drawn as admitting allegations, plaintiffs go require proofs.

Demurrer sustained. Tucker v. Tilton.

Under a Gen. notice to subsequent a not recorded is to record. valid mortgage such a to make attachment of attorney who makes of Knowledge .of Avrit, no not knowl- but has agency procuring edge J. Tilton— Tucker, This Samuel Betsy administrator, against cause— act of The referred under the provisions judiciary law

referee his conclusions of facts and as follows: reported an action of fifteen The hay. tons trespass taking plea issue, defend- and a brief statement justifying ant, sheriff, deputy M. Sar- The referee the residing facts to be Daniel following found proven: Tilton, then now indebted gent, being justly $538, $350 the sum in about a note for dated June of 10,1870, then now resident Warner, mortgaged a mow a barn hay said security indebtedness, quantity hay long, wide, 17 feet and was Northfield, said measure 32 feet being by 6,628 containing cubic feet. The high, feet dated, 21, 1873, sworn to signed, February the mortgagor, wrote said mort- administered O. C. Esq., oath gage. 1,1873, made oath to the on March mortgagee March Jones, recorded George Esq. Northfield, but was of the town in the town-clerk’s office 1873, never recorded resided. the mortgagor in the town Tilton where sheriff, virtue of a valid 9,1873, defendant, On deputy June the said Foss attachment Loren writ of sold the included subsequently attached Sargent, described attach- in said asserted understood, informed and subsequently ment, TUCKER v. TILTON. “ knew there was of said bay Northfield,” “ *2 he considered it not for it was not anything because in Tilton.” attachment was made said C. C. Rogers, as attorney for said Loren Eoss. Said said writ, knew that he had made at the making time of Rogers, been the that it had executed and sworn to by the but it did not whether appear or not that knew it had sworn nor been the mortgagee, n whetheror not it had been recorded Northfield or elsewhere. quantity hay taken the was was tons, defendant five its value forty-seven dollars and cents. fifty The referee’s conclusions were, of law was invalid the (1) against Eoss, the it re- the reason that was never corded Tilton. attaching creditor, Eoss, to be (2) regarded having notice of the reason of the mortgage by knowledge either of of Mr. His attachment Rogers. valid. To these as to rulings the law the plaintiff excepted, the ques- tions were reserved at term, 1874, the October for the decision of the court. superior Subject these the referee that the exceptions, awarded recover of the costs court and plaintiff costs reference to be taxed court. by the Walker, 0. J. The v. 12 N. Young 502, case of H. seems a direct to the that of the was point officer of the in the writ of In attached, been back into hands of property, having gone debtor; the ment could not do so if and it was held that the second attach person he knew was under attach ment, and that there was an of bailment. unrescinded contract It was held that writ, ivas of the out agent party suing A purpose former attachment. principal notice to matter agent respecting any distinctly within of his notice is agency, when the before the scope given transaction begins, or it is so far as to render the notice completed nugatory. Pars, 1 on 79, Con. authorities. It then, authorities, be on these em- made, knew, before the attachment ployer mortgage not been recorded it had respects excepting the town where the lived. mortgagor 545, Edwards Harben, T. R. Ash v. 5 N. H. Savage, may be out of authorities to show selected numerous common

law, a is valid ac when the personal property possession ; e., %. and follows the deed the deed indicates that companies sion posses to be retained possession retained, law, common independent our statute. is of

By our statute the no effect against any but the and his heirs, affidavit, unless verified grantor recorded. Moore, and Patten N. H. Gooding Riley, is good against that an unrecorded mortgage are authorities point and bona aware of the existence fides found that it cannot be in the On the facts as they appear report, until the of mortgage creditor is affected with his writ in the defendant’s time when he placed Mr. attorney, He is not affected with the at all his agent that Mr. Rogers because it does appear attachment of the property. held that party, it was Stowe served, it about to procured having him on inquiry, then received information calculated put the inquiry and make proceedings, suspend in that case his writ. It was also intimated the service of *3 him which put instead of information different, if, result have been of a valid deed. he had actual notice inquiry, got had actual to have In this is to be taken employer time he valid, unrecorded mortgage, the plaintiff’s attach the in he lawfully officer’s Could placed such then obtained ? with property it, I understand in The reason the decision Stowe v. officer,and is, having his and his having procured his then to stay pro- to attach the got ready ceedings attach the but inquiries, the purpose instituting at once. in a instead of where, being put upon reason cannot case as it of diligence certain information. In the race inquiry, he receives are in called, good sometimes where have claims just his does not faith, advantage to retain winning party ahead of of time which he comes length depend upon by competitors. con- is, conclusion My attaching therefore and that officer, time he a sidered notice must recorded, not ease, mortgage that in this of bona like fide defeating have the effect forms required of Hill v. is cited to show case Gilman ; and that case is sought must with by strictly the law complied that the subsequent the fact by from distinguished Gooding Riley, creditor, and not a purchaser, was an subsequent claimant facts the case But it is one of the last mentioned case. Elizabeth, good against statute of was, under the the plaintiff’s creditors. of Elizabeth under the statute at common law and Being avoided, and therefore creditors, against subsequent attaching failure Stats., ch. 123—and if at statute —Gen. all, force entirely failure terms, of this depend with its the consequences comply creditors between statute makes no difference those terms. The valid against shall be Its No such are, others. terms —“ administrators,” executors, tlie Ms any person except void against etc. The of 18th of Elizabeth makes the mortgage statute statute, if them. Our attaching creditors, made to defraud —Gen. with, not makes the complied —if and administrators. executors, void all but the under the therefore, statute plaintiff’s mortgage, being good construc is an Elizabeth, the case of Gooding Riley with Hill v. Gil cited, tion General Statutes above and inconsistent it. The which I do man, see, qualifying be considered does find that knew that plaintiff’s case terms consideration, Ibut faith for a full was made thereto. think that what the case find to be held equivalent does ought invalid, to these views the defendant’s attachment According must be allowed. exceptions formality want of Ladd, J. There was no defect Gilman, see, of Hill v. in its execution. I do not as the cases direct any very Gooding Riley, of actual only as to the effect question application. one rule, an unrecorded deed. The actual to set title such deed attempting up of its and to the extent way the same knowledge he record, settled and familiar. would have been its well perfectly The referee seems to have made a distinction between I do in Foss Sargent. this defendant and not understand knowledge by plaintiff, made. can be such distinction what ground attach, not the property that writ the defendant was commanded to By that, inas it is clear of this Sargent, *4 title, cannot had state of the he much he of the actual it be the agent virtue of unless taking by justify precept, his justifi creditor Foss. But the moment he attempts place his knowl wTitli Foss, chargeable oil that ground, cation edge direction of principal, or without the specific So whether he acted with agent. Foss, this plaintiff attempt shown, under circumstances equally Foss’s debt satisfaction fail. fraud, must, for the am of that there should be report I opinion judgment referee, with as found for the value of the a trial elects unless either taking, party from the interest time by jury. is better settled I No opinion. principle J. am the Smith, deed or creditor of an unrecorded that notice

than no defect record of the same. There was to a is no of any and there suggestion in the plaintiff’s malafides. that it was exe- are sufficient to show in the case facts reported had then knew that the plaintiff The defendant faith. cuted to attach, he was about which MALONY v. WADDLE. is all the information would although unrecorded. him was received sufficient been recorded. himself; the attaching he was or agent, was in fact his servant his interests. He to secure the knowledge and the cited show authorities of the creditor. there

Unless elects a trial by jury, either party Judgment Malony Waddle. of action an account on which

In action debt on judgment, writ on which existed in at the date of the founded, filed in set-off. bemay judgment term, 1874, of the recovered the April Debt judgment court, Peter Waddle. The Malony against Annie judicial supreme set-off, is dated defendant asked leave file 4,1874. The May which all of certain items account embracing wras action. Leave original the writ sued out accrued before court, which the granted by plaintiff excepted. B. B. for the Sanborn,

Barnard, for the defendant. 0. J. No has been made circumstance suggestion the statute. ordinary takes this out of which practice Ladd and Smith, JJ., concurred.

The exception

beMust overruled.