
    B. W. Preston v. James Caul, Hattie E. Caul, Appellants, and B. P. Anderson.
    Chattel Mortgages : sufficient description. Description of property in a chattel mortgage is sufficient to give constructive notice to subsequent lienholders, it purporting to be made by C., ‘‘in the county of Mahaska and the state of Iowa,” the property being described as “ one sorrel colt coming two years old, a standard bred stallion colt called S.it being recited, “It is provided that said C. gives this mortgage on said stallion colt for a half interest in the same,” and conditioned that C. shall not remove the property “from said county of Mahaska.”
    
      Appeal from Mahasha District Gourt. — HoN. D. Kyan, Judge.
    Friday, October 20, 1899.
    Action in equity upon a promissory note and to foreclose a chattel mortgage securing it. The defendants answered denying the validity of plaintiff’s mortgage, and setting up two certain mortgages on the same property, one in favor of Hattie E. Caul, and the other in favor of defendant Anderson, as prior and superior to the lien of the mortgage held by plaintiff. A demurrer to the answer was sustained. Defendants electing to stand on such pleading, a decree was rendered in plaintiff’s favor. Defendants James Caul .and Hattie E. Caul appeal.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      Dan Davis for appellants.
    
      John O’Malcolm and G. W. Lafferty for appellee.
   WatebmaN, J.

Plaintiff’s mortgage was first made- and recorded, and the sol© question we have to determine is, was the description given therein of the property sufficient to afford constructive notice to subsequent lien-holders ?' The mortgage purports to be made by James Caul, “in the-county of Mahaska and the state of Iowa.” The property is thus described: “One sorrel colt, coming two years old,, a standard stallion bred colt called ‘Seattle.’ ” Continuing,, the instrument recites: “It is provided that said James-Caul gives this mortgage on said stallion colt for one-half' interest in said stallion colt.” It is a further condition of said instrument that Caul shall not remove the property “from said county of Mahaska.” It appears clear from this mortgage that Caul owned an interest, at least, in this-horse; that he had the property in Mahaska county; and the-color, age, and name of said animal are given. This is a sufficient description to impart constructive notice to those-subsequently dealing with the property. — Shellhammer v. Jones, 87 Iowa, 520; Brock v. Barr, 70 Iowa, 400.- — Affirmed.  