
    Adoply Endrick v. Peter Karlin.
    Bill of Sale — Record.
    A bill of sale is not required to be recorded and if it is recorded is not notice to tbe public.
    Lien.
    Tbe lien retained in a bill of sale is good as between tbe vendor and vendee and tbe equity will be protected against tbe claim of any person not possessing a superior right.
    Rights of Creditor.
    Tbe creditor of one wbo bas executed a bill of sale to another, becoming such creditor after its execution, is of no greater dignity than that of tbe bolder of tbe bill of sale and is inferior in point of time, and where such creditor bas actual notice of tbe senior equity, bis claim is postponed to that of tbe bolder of tbe bill.
    APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.
    December 5, 1876.
   Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Whilst there is no statute requiring or authorizing the recording of a bill of sale of personal property, and whilst the law will not imply notice upon the part of either a purchaser or creditor by reason of such recording of any lien that may be retained to secure the vendor in the payment of the purchase price, yet it seems that actual notice of appellee’s lien had been brought to the appellant before the enforcement of his execution levy.

The lien retained in the bill of sale is good as between the appellee and his debtor. It is an equity that will be protected by the chancellor against the claim of any person who does not possess a superior right. Appellant’s debt was not contracted on the faith of the personal property in contest. It was sold by appellee to the common debtor long after appellant’s debt was created. The sleeping or secret equity cannot, therefore, operate as an actual fraud upon his rights. His claim arises out of the levy of his execution. It is of no greater dignity than that of the appellee, and it is inferior in point of time. He had actual notice of the senior equity, and according to the doctrines of the cases of Halley v. Oldham, et al., 5 B. Mon. 233; Righter, et al., v. Forrester, et al., 1 Bush 278, and Low & Whitney v. Blinco, et al., 10 Bush 335, he ought not to be allowed to proceed to sell the property under his execution levy.

James Harrison, for appellant.

P. A. Gaertner, L. M. Dembits, for appellee.

This conclusion obviates the necessity of considering the proof touching the execution of the alleged mortgage.

Judgment affirmed.  