1082 HALL V. CARTWRIGHT. [179 HALL - V. CARTWRIGHT. Opinion delivered SepteMber 23, 1929. . 1. STATUTES—LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is the duty of the court, in the coristruction of statutes, to arrive at the legislative will, to be determined , primarily from the language of the statute itself, and to sweep aside all obstacles in•accomplishing it. 2: STATUTES -AMAIGUITY.—If a Statiite is susceptible of two con-struetibris, 'one of which wouid -re/icier 'it an absurdity' and the other would not, the latter will be'addpted. 3. MARTGAGES—PLACE OF RECORD OF CHATTEL MORTGAGES.—Under Crawford & Moses' Dig., §§ 7380-1, requiring chattel mortgages to be rfiled for record in the county in which the mortgagor resides or in the district of his res:dence 'where the county is divided, recording subh a mortgage in the Osceola District of Mississippi County where the propeity was situated . did not create a lien on the property where the mortgagor' resided in the Chickasawbe -District of said county. Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Osceola District; J. M. Futrell, Chancellor ; affirmed. Reid, Evrard Henderson and C. A. Cunningham, 'for"appellant. G..B.,Segraves, for appellee. , KIRBY, j Appellant states correctly that there is but one- question involved in this appeal, whether the recording of a mortgage . -of personal property in the Osceola District of Mississippi County, where *the property \Vas situated, while the mortgagor resided in Blythe-ville; in the Chickasawba District in said county, created -.a lien on the -abstract books mortga.ged. The abstract books were purthased. by appellee at a sale duly made-by the trustee: in bankruptcy, the mort-, gagors having. been declared a bankrupt more than four months after the execution of the mortgage and the rec-, ord thereof at Osceola, where the books were situated -at tlie time of this suit andin the possession of the appel-lee company. .• A mortgage 'of personal property does not constitute a lien 'upon the property mortgaged until the same is filed for record in the recorder's office in the county in which the mortgagor resides, or in the district of his residence
ARTi.11 HALL v. CARTWRIGHT. 104.<3 where the county . is • divided_ into -districts. Sections 7380-.81, C. & M. Digest; Beaver v. Frick Company, 53 Ark„ 18, 13 S. W. 134. By act 81 of 1901 and act• *68 of 1919, amendatory thereof, Mississippi County was diVided into two judicial districts, • designated as the Osceola District and the Chickasal0a District, the acts expressly providing that, for all purposes thereof, these districts should be considered as separate and distinct counties, the amenda-tory. act-requiring the clerk to keep a record of the sales of lands for taxes, the formation and alteration of school. districts,- the establishment and location of roads and highways and of ditches and -drainage districts, and the alteration thereof; a record for 'all deeds, of trust and mortgages and . other instruments required by law to be recorded; "and to record all such instruments pertaining - to the property rights of• the Chickasawba District, and shall'either file or record all chattel mortgages pertaining to personal property : in said"district in his office in said district, and all such instruments; when so filed or recorded, shall have the same force . .and effect as if filed or recorded at Osceola, in said county." • Appellant concedes that the recording of the mortgage at Osceola would have created no lien on the property . there situate, the mortgagor at the•time residing in the, Chiekasawba District, under: the terms of the original act of 190 . 1 creating.the two districts of the county, and that proper construction of the act would be controlled -by the decisions above cited. He insists, however, that the amendment to the act providing for the filing or recording of chattel mortgages in the Chicka-sawba District, and that all such instrumentS, when so filed- or recorded, "should -haVd the same force and effect as if filed or recorded at Osceola in said county,-" changes the effect of the law, and that . chattel mortgages pertaining to prOperty Situate. in :the Osceola . District create a valid lien when filed or reCorded there, so long, as..the mortgagor- resided in Mississippi , County, without . regard to his being a resident , of the Chickasawba District.
1084 [179 The law as amended only pertains to property in the Chickasawb a a District, and has • no reference to chattel mortgages property in the Osceola District, leaving the law . relative thereto as it was prior to the division of the county into districts by the said act of 1901. It is the duty 'of the court, in the construction . of statutes, to arrive at the legislative will, to be determined priniarily from the language 'of the statute itself, and to sweep aside all obstacles in the way of accomplishing it, and if a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which would render it an absurdity and the other would not, the latter will be adopted. McDaniel v. Ashworth, 137 Ark. 280, 209 S. W. 646; Standard Oil Co. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 124, 239 S. W. 753; Southern Surety Co. v. Dardanelle Road Improv ' ement District, 169 Ark. 764, 276 S. W. 1014, 42 A. L. R. 299. The fair and reasonable construction of the statute 'dividing the county into, two districts and providing, for all purposes of the act, that they should be considered as distinct counties, and the amendment relating expressly to the filing or recording of chattel mortgages in the Chickasawba DiArict, could mean only that such mortgages, whe.n filed or recorded in such district, would create a lien on the property mortgaged under the same conditions as the filing or recording of a chattel mort-gUgs in a county not so divided, and any other construction would render it an absUrdity, or amohnt to a repeal of such statute. The decree is. correct, and must 13e affirmed. It is" so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.