
    MACK INTERNATIONAL TRUCK CORPORATION and UTILITY TRAILER DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION et al., v. R. G. WILKINS and KENNETH WILKINS, Trading as R. G. WILKINS & SON, EARL McD. WESTBROOK et al.
    (Filed 19 March, 1941.)
    Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales § 9a: Attachment § 22: Courts § Pl-
    under the general rule of comity, the lien of a retention title contract on personal property duly registered and indexed in the state wherein it was executed and tbe property was then located, has priority over the lien of an attachment subsequently issued against the same property in this State, notwithstanding that the retention title contract is not registered here.
    Appeal by defendants Westbrook et al. from Garr, J., at September Term, 1940, of Habnett.
    
      I. B. Williams for plaintiffs, appellees.
    
    
      J. A. McLeod for defendants Westbrook et al., appellants.
    
   Schenck, J.

According to tbe agreed statement of facts, tbe plaintiffs were owners of retention title contracts on certain personal property from tbe defendants Wilkins & Son, wbicb were executed, registered and indexed in tbe proper registry in tbe county of Polk and State of Florida. Subsequent to sucb registrations in tbe State of Florida tbe defendants Westbrook et al. caused to be issued attachments against tbe said personal property in tbe county of Harnett and State of North Carolina to collect certain debts due them by tbe defendants Wilkins & Son.

This action was instituted by tbe plaintiffs to have tbe liens of tbe retention title contracts registered in tbe State of Florida declared superior to tbe liens of tbe attachments subsequently issued in tbe State of North Carolina. Tbe Superior Court held with tbe plaintiffs and entered judgment accordingly, from wbicb tbe defendants Westbrook et al. appealed, assigning error.

Tbe sole question presented is: Are tbe liens of title retention contracts on personal property duly executed, registered and indexed in tbe State of Florida superior to tbe liens of attachments subsequently issued against tbe same personal property in tbe State of North Carolina? Tbe answer is in tbe affirmative.

Tbe general rule of comity, in tbe absence of a modifying statute, protects tbe lien of a retention title contract or chattel mortgage on personal property duly registered and indexed in tbe State wherein it was executed and tbe property was then located, after tbe removal thereof to another state without registration in tbe latter state. Applewhite Co. v. Etheridge, 210 N. C., 433, 187 S. E., 588, 5 R. C. L., at p. 987, Conflict of Laws, Chattel Mortgages, par. 68.

Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.  