Statement. of Canada, for the accommodation of the said mortgagor, which notes are in the words and figures following, that is to say copies of said notes are hereto annexed and are for the following amounts, $400, $300, $200, and $100 with interest as therein stated. And whereas the said mortgagor has agreed to enter into these presents for the purpose of indemnifying and saving harmless the said mortgagee of and from the payment of the said several notes, or any part thereof, or any renewal hereafter to be endorsed by the said mortgagee for the accommodation of the said mortgagor by way of renewal of the said recited notes, or any of them, so that, however, said renewal shall not extend the time of payment of said note or notes beyond the period of one year from the date hereof, nor increase the amount of said liability beyond the amount of said interest accruing thereon. Now this indenture witnesseth that the said mortgagor unto the said mortgagee hath granted all and singular the goods and chattels hereinafter particularly mentioned and described, that is to say one Ironclad mower, one Patterson reaper, one Milwaukee self binder, one horse rake, three lumber waggons, one lumber sleigh, one cutter, one buggy, one pair shebogan sleighs, one seed-drill, two plows, one spring tooth harrow, one drag, one gang plow, one hair cloth rocking chair, one Dominion organ, one hair cloth sofa, one centre table, one couch, seven hair cloth chairs, ten cane bottom chairs, one sideboard, one bookcase, one brown horse named Frank, sixteen years old, one black horse named Prince, nine years old, one brown mare named Kate, ten years old, one brown mare named Mag, seventeen years old, one bay mare colt Jen, four years old, one mare colt named Kit, three years old, one cream colour horse called Tom, thirteen years old, one red bull four years old, one white cow eleven years old, one spotted white and red cow eleven years old, one spotted red and white cow twelve years old, two spotted red and white cows six years old, one spotted red and white cow five years old, three red cows ten years old each, one red cow twelve years old, Statement. one red cow twelve years old, two red cows each six years old, one brindle cow eleven years old, three red cows each five years old, one black cow seven years old, three red cows four years old, one red and white spotted cow four years old, three two-year-old heifers spotted red and white, one white two-year-old heifer, two clear white three-year-old heifers, two spotted red and white threeyear-old heifers, together with the hay, grain and straw which may be produced and grown by the mortgagor upon the lands herein set out, viz., south-east part of lot 15, 1st concession of Rawdon, where mortgagor lives and works and farms, one wooden roller, one Patterson make mower, one covered two horse carriage, 200 cords of cordwood, 10,000 feet of basswood lumber now at mortgagor's mill in Sidney. Provided always, and these presents are upon this condition, that if the said mortgagor, do and shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, the said notes and renewals, if any so as aforesaid endorsed by the said mortgagee, a copy of which said notes are set out in the recital of this indenture; and do and shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid all and every other note or notes which may hereafter be endorsed by the said mortgagee for the accommodation of the said mortgagor by way of renewal of the said notes or the renewals in the said recital to this indenture set forth, and indemnify and save harmless the said mortgagee, his heirs, executors and administrators, from all loss costs, charges, damages, or expenses, in respect of the said notes or renewals, as hereinbefore set forth, so that the liability expires within a year from now. Then these presents shall be utterly void to all intents and purposes. Subsequently the three last notes with the interest due thereon were consolidated into a new note for $1,000 dated the 12th of March, 1889, payable 12 months after date, which was substituted for them. The first note was re Statement. newed by a renewal note for $400 dated the 3rd of March, 1889, payable 6 months after date. The old notes were returned to the mortgagor, and on the 9th of April, 1889, a new chattel mortgage was taken by the plaintiff containing among others the following provisions : Whereas the said mortgagee, at the request of the said mortgagor, and for his accommodation, hath endorsed certain promissory notes of the said mortgagor for the sum of $1,400.00, upon the agreement that the mortgagor should execute and deliver these presents as security to the mortgagee, against his endorsement of said note or any renewal thereof that shall not extend the liability of the said mortgagee beyond one year from the date hereof, and against any loss that may be sustained by him by reason of such endorsement of said note or any renewal thereof, which said promissory notes are in the words and figures following: [The notes were then set out.] [The chattels were the chattels covered by the previous mortgage and were described in the same way, with a further description by reference to their locality.] The affidavit of bona fides was as follows: I, James Boldrick, of Stirling, of the County of Hastings, merchant, make oath and say: That the above mortgage truly sets forth the agreement entered into between. myself and George Baragar the said mortgagor therein named, and truly states the extent of the liability intended to be created by such agreement and covered by such mortgage, and that the same was executed in good faith, and for the express purpose of securing me the said mortgagee therein named, against his endorsement of a certain promissory notes for, or any renewal of the said recited promissory notes, and not for the purpose of securing the goods and chattels mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, marked "A," against the creditors of the mortga gor, nor to prevent such creditors from recovering any Statement. claim which they may have against such mortgagor. Upon the claim being made to the goods and chattels by the mortgagee an interpleader summons' was taken out by the Sheriff, and upon the return of this summons the claimant rested his claim on the mortgage of the 9th of April, 1889, and made no mention of the mortgage of the 30th of January, 1889. An issue was directed, and in this issue, the claimant being the plaintiff, his title was spoken of as being "by virtue of a chattel mortgage" but no particular mortgage was specified. The issue came on for trial before LAZIER, Co. J., at Belleville, on the 10th of December, 1889, and at the trial both mortgages were proved and relied upon, apparently without any objection on the part of the defendant's counsel. There was some evidence that the new mortgage was not to be in substitution or satisfaction of the old mortgage. The learned Judge held that the mortgage of the 9th of April, 1889, was valid, and also expressed the opinion that even if the plaintiff was not entitled to hold the goods under the mortgage of the 9th of April, he could still hold them under the mortgage of the 30th of January, and he gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. From this judgment the defendant appealed, and the appeal came on to be heard before this Court (HAGARTY, C. J. O., BURTON, OSLER and MACLENNAN, JJ. A.) on the 5th of March, 1890. T. Hislop, for the appellant. The affidavit of bona fides in the mortgage of the 9th of April, 1889, is defective. The words "his endorsement" are used instead of "my endorsement," and the whole affidavit is vague and uncertain: Re Andrews, 2 A. R. 24; Davis v. Wickson, 1 O. R. 369; O'Donohoe v. Wilson, 42 U. C. R. 329. Even if the affidavit is sufficient the description of the chattels is not full enough, there being no reference to locality, and the mortgage is invalid on that ground: McCall v. Wolff, 13 S. C.R. Argument. The plaintiff can 130; Holt v. Carmichael, 2 A. R. 639. G. A. Skinner, for the respondent. The affidavit of bona fides in the second mortgage is quite sufficient, as, read with the recitals in the mortgage, it is quite clear what is intended to be covered and that is all that is necessary: Embury v. West, 15 A. R. 357; Driscoll v. Green, 8 A. R. 366; Mathers v. Lynch, 28 U. C. R. 354. The description of the chattels is also sufficient and the mortgage should be upheld. At any rate the plaintiff is entitled to rely on the first mortgage, the $400 note mentioned in the second mortgage being a renewal of the note for the like amount mentioned in the first mortgage, and that first mortgage securing the mortgagee against any renewal notes becoming due within a year from the date of the mortgage. Hislop in reply. May 13th, 1890. OSLER, J. A. :— The affidavit of bona fides in the mortgage of the 9th of April is defective in one essential particular, viz.: in the averment peculiar to the case of a mortgage given, as this was, to secure the mortgagee against payment of the amount of the liability which he had assumed for the mortgagor by the endorsement of the notes therein referred to. It is unfortunate that the 6th section of the Chattel Mortgage Act is so confusedly expressed, but it has been frequently pointed out that it provides for two classes of cases; one being that of a mortgage to secure repayment of advances made by the mortgagee under an agreement in writing with the mortgagor to make such advances; and the other the case of a mortgage of goods |