
    David M. Lawrence v. Evarts & Cooper.
    The description of a machine in a chattel mortgage^ by the name by which it is usually known, and as being in a certain place, is sufficient, although the machine is in an unfinished state. If the article named is in such a condition that, from its appearance, persons acquainted with like machines would know it by the designation given to it in the mortgage, the description is sufficient, although other and material parts are necessary to be added to make it complete.
    *In error to the district court of Hamilton county.
    On the 12th of April, 1850, Evarts mortgaged to Lawrence certain goods described as follows :
    “The following property, now situated in Walter & Meader’s bureau factory, so called, on Smith street, near Front, Cincinnati, viz: three 12-feet planing-machines, Nos. 3, 4, and 5.” • • • “ Said ^articles being now in my shop, in said Walter & Meader’s bureau factory building.”
    It was recorded on the same day. At the June term, 1850, of the Superior Court of Cincinnati, Benjamin D. Wheeler obtained a judgment against Evarts for $1,006.50, damages and costs; and on "the 26th day of June, 1850, an execution issued upon said judgment, and was the same day levied by Cooper, as sheriff, upon the goods (among others) described in the levy, as “ three unfinished large planing-machines.”
    On the 6th of July, 1850, Lawrence replevied them; and on the trial a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The case was then appealed ; and on the trial in the district court, the court found for the defendant, as to these machines, and assessed Cooper’s damages at $1,328.45. A motion was made for a new trial, because the finding was against the law and the evidence, which was overruled, and a bill of exceptions taken.
    It appears from the testimony, made a part of the bill of exceptions, that Evarts was engaged in manufacturing planing-machines; that he only attempted to make six; and of these six, he only completed one. Lane, one of the witnesses, says, that at the time the three planing-machines, numbered 3, 4, and 5, were mortgaged to Lawarenee, he was in the employ of Evarts, and that Lawrence a,nd Evarts, about the time the mortgage was made, pointed them. out to him, and told him they were mortgaged; that they were in, the same place as described in the mortgage, from that time up to-the date of the seizure by the coroner. The same machines that had been pointed out to him, at the time the mortgage was given, were pointed out by him to the coroner at the time of the replevin. These machines were in the shop at the time of making the mortgage. This witness ^states also, that after the replevin, he-finished two of them, one of which sold for $1,300, and one for $1,000.
    The machines, as far as made when the mortgage was executed, were put together ; but two of them lacked bed-pieces, and other-constituents necessary to complete them. They were not one-third, completed when levied upon.
    A small amount of work and materials was added after the mortgage, and before the levy, but the precise amount does not appear.
    Machinists testified that a planing-machine, unfinished and incomplete, or lacking parts necessary to make it operate and work, was not considered by them a “ planing-machine.”
    The unfinished machines, at the time the mortgage was made, were worth about three or four hundred dollars each.
    The plaintiff in error claims that the description in the mortgage-was sufficient to enable all interested to identify the property, aided by such inquiries as the subject would suggest, and therefore good; and that the court below erred in overruling his motion, for a new trial/
    
      Alex. H. Me Guffey, and Mills & Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wrn. Phillips, Jun., and F. Collins, for Cooper.
   J. R. Swan, J.

The question made below and here, is whether the description of the articles mentioned in the mortgage is so uncertain and defective that they can not pass under the mortgage.

A mortgage of “ all the stock, tools, and chattels, belonging to ” the mortgagor, “ in and about the wheelright-shop occupied by him,” is not void as against creditors; and the mortgagee may show, by parol evidence, what articles were in and about the shop when the mortgage was made. Harding v. Colburn, 12 Met. 333. And to the same effect is Morse v. Pike, 15 N. H. 529; Burdett v. Hunt, 25 Maine, 419; Wolfe v. Dorr, 24 Maine, 104; Winslow et al. v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 4 Met. 306.

*The principle to be deduced from these cases is, that any description which will enable third persons to identify the property,, aided by inquiries which the mortgage itself indicates and directs,, is sufficient. The identity of the property is not, in such cases,, ascertained by any specific description which distinguishes it from other property of the same kind of species, but by its locality.

The planing-machines in controversy in this case were sufficiently described in respect to their locality; and the only question remaining in the case, is, whether the unfinished machines could be denominated planing-machines.

Machinists in the purchase of a planing-maehine, or the manufacturer, undertaking to furnish one for his customers, would of course be dealing about a complete working machine, and would not recognize as a planing-maehine one that was incomplete and unfinished. The machinists who were examined as witnesses in this case seem to have been impressed with this idea, in testifying that unfinished planing-machines were not in fact planing-machines.. That they were not planing-machines in this sense, is very clear; but it does not touch the question in the case. If it does, then every tool or implement mortgaged, if not perfect in its constituent parts, so as to be in working order, could not be covered by a mortgage or bill of sale, unless described as out of order or unfinished.

The real question is, whether so much of the machine was put-together, as that it could be denominated a planing-maehine in a mortgage or sale without misleading those who know what a planing-machine is. A watch without mainspring or hands-might, •very properly, be described in a mortgage as a watch; and it is-clear that some of the material constituents of an article may be wanting, and yet the article be sufficiently designated by its usual name. All that seems necessary in such case of an unfinished or incomplete article is, that so much of it is put together or exists as-to make it capable of identity as belonging to the description 'of article designated. To require more than this, would unnecessarily defeat a mortgage or other conveyance; loss than this would mislead third persons. The court below seem to have adopted the rule that a mortgage describing an article as a *planing-machine was void for uncertainty of description, because the planing-machine was unfinished. In this, a majority of the court are of the opinion that the district court erred. If sufficient of the materials which usually compose a planing-machine were put together, bo that, from its appearance, persons acquainted with planing-machines would not be misled by that designation, it is sufficient, although ■other and material parts were necessary'to be added to make it complete. And the test of its answering the description does not depend so much upon the expense of the work and materials necessary to complete the machine, as upon the materials which have been put together indicating, from its appearance, that it is the kind •of machine named in the mortgage.

Some materials and labor were added to the planing-machines, by the mortgagor, after the mortgage was made. The amount of these is too vaguely proved to raise any question as to their effect upon the rights of the mortgagee or the creditors of the mortgagor.

' Judgment reversed.

Brinkerhoee, Scott, and Sutlief, JJ., concurred.

Bartley, C. J., dissented.  