
    T. Jewell v. R. B. Read and W. H. Harris.
    Where the act of mortgage neither describes the person nor gives the name of the slave mortgaged, but simply states that Read, the mortgagor, mortgages to Jewell, the mortgagee, “ the property conveyed by him {Jewell) this day to the said Hice B. Read, as per act of sale passed before me the said notary,” and the act of mortgage was recorded, but the act of sale was not. JTeld: That the mortgage was insufficient to effect a purchase without notice, for a valuable consideration.
    from the District Court of the Parish of J.
    
    
      Bernias & Hynes, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      Short & Barham, for defendant:
    The mere reference to a deed, for the description of property, will not bind third parties. O. C. 3273, 3272, 3274. 5 An. 123. C. 0. 3275, 3275. A mortgagee who seeks to enforce his mortgage against third persons, must show that his mortgage has been duly recorded. 2 R. R. 17. 6 R. R. 333.
    
      
      It does not appear from the record that the judgment of the District Court was signed.
    
   Slidell, 0. J.

The plaintiff seeks to enforce a mortgage upon a slave in the hands of Harris, a. third possessor. The act of mortgage does not mention nor describe the slave, but Bead, the mortgagor, simply mortgages to Jewell, “ the property conveyed by him this day, to the said 1lice B. Bead, as per act of sale passed before me, notary.” This mortgage was recorded in the book of conventional mortgages, but the deed of sale which conveyed the slave to Bead, was not recorded with it simultaneously in the mortgage book, nor at any other time in that book, so far as the evidence informs us. This inscription was manifestly insufficient to charge with notice the defendant, Harris, an admitted purchaser for a valuable consideration. Perot v. Chambers, 2 An. 800. Robertson v. Brown, 5 An. 154.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  