Holt v. Henley

Citations

• 232 U.S. 637
• 34 S. Ct. 458
• 58 L. Ed. 767
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1310

Syllabus

<p>The amendment to the Bankruptcy Act of June 25, 1910, giving the trustees, as to all property coming into the custody of the Bankruptcy Court, the rights of a creditor holding a lien, should not be construéd to impair then existing rights.</p> <p>Whether the power of Congress is limited in that respect or not, the usual interpretation of such statutes is to confine their effect to property rights subsequently established.</p> <p>The right of one who had sold to the bankrupt under an agreement to retain title until payment, as it existed on June 25, 1910, was not affected by the amendment to the Bankruptcy. Act of that date even if he did not comply with the statute of the State in regard to recording the agreement.</p> <p>The goods in this ease having been sold on conditional sale prior to the' amendment of June 25, 1910, the seller had a better title than the trustee. York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 201 ,U. S. 344. '</p> <p>Where the addition to the premises covered by the mortgage is not in its nature an essential indispensable part of the completed structure contemplated by that instrument, and its removal would not affect the integrity of that structure, the mortgagee takes just such interest ■ in the addition, as the mortgagor acquired, no more no less.</p> <p>A sprinkler plant placed on mortgaged premises after the execution of that instrument and under an unrecorded conditional sale agreement held not to have attached to the freehold or to be covered by the after acquired property clause beyond the extent which the mortgagor had acquired.</p>