
    CHARLES F. KING, as Receiver, etc., of SARAH R. WILBER and JOHN S. WILBER, Appellants, v. JOHN H. WALBRIDGE, Respondent, impleaded with SARAH R. WILBER and JOHN S. WILBER.
    
      Chattel mortgage — the mortgagee may purchase the chattels at public sale after due notice has been given thereof.
    
    Appeal by tbe plaintiff from a judgment entered in Saratoga county, in favor of tbe defendant, Jobn H. Walbridge, dismissing tbe complaint with, costs.
    Tbe action was in tbe nature of a creditor’s bill to set aside as fraudulent and void, as against tbe plaintiff, a sale of certain stock and materials, made by tbe defendants under chattel mortages upon tbe same, given by tbe judgment debtors Sarab R. Wilber and Jobn S. Wilber. Tbe charge of tbe plaintiff substantially was that tbe defendant Walbridge, who held a chattel mortgage upon tbe stock and materials to secure tbe payment of a just debt, fraudulently combined with tbe judgment debtors to expand bis claim beyond what was justly due him, and so conducted tbe sale under tbe chattel mortgage as to secure tbe possession and apparent title of a large and valuable property in fraud of tbe other creditors of tbe Wilbers.
    Tbe court at General Term, after examining tbe evidence and affirming tbe action of tbe trial court, which refused to find tbe existence of tbe fraud charged in tbe complaint, said: “ Tbe objection that Walbridge, tbe mortgagee, could not purchase the mortgaged chattels at a public sale is not well taken. Tbe sale was valid in law and only voidable in equity at tbe suit of some one injuriously affected by it. (Olcott v. Tioga, JR. JR. Go., N. Y., 546.)
    “ Tbe mortgagee’s title became perfect in law against tbe mortgagor upon default. (Judson v. Easton, 58 N. Y. 664.) Tbe mortgagor could ratify the sale, and he did. (Damenjport v. MeGhesney, 86 N. Y., 242.)
    “ The receiver had no lien upon the chattels at the time of the mortgage sale. (Tb.) It is believed, however, notwithstanding ;some cases apparently to the contrary, that a mortgagee may purchase the mortgaged chattels at a public sale after due notice. The reasons given in Olcottv. Tioga Railroad Gom/pam/y, are satisfactory, and the opinion there given has been followed. {Hall v. JDitson, 55 How., 19 ; Fdrrdston v. Bruoker, 40 Hun, 256.
    “ The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.”
    
      8. Brown, for the appellants.
    
      F. T. Brackett, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

LaNDON, J.;

Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  