?t. Rep. 238, 239, et seq., as containing a collation of the decisions, ind we are satisfied that they fully sustain our view in this respect. It was urged that the only means of identifying the property intended to be mortgaged was by its location at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and that there is no evidence which fixes its situs at the precise moment of the giving of the sccurity. But it appears to be undisputed that all of the property, except an engine, separator, and some plows, were on this section 19 the day the property was attached, which was only three days after the execution of the mortgage. Having in view the character of the property, and the fact that the owner thereof, Mr. Morrison, also owned this tract of land, that the property seems to have been kept there constantly, and there being no proof that it was placed upon this farm after the execution of the mortgage, we are clear that there is nothing in this contention; but, as to the engine, separator, and some of the plows, we must hold that the description in the mortgage was insufficient. It appeared that they were not upon section 19, and there was no other description of them, aside from the incorrect statement as to their location, sufficient to point out the property to a third person within the rule governing such cases.
The attachment, it is claimed, was made after the execution but before the filing of the mortgage. Assuming this to be so, still the question remains whether the attachment lien is superior tothat of the mortgage. That the lien of the mortgage was good as between the parties to it without the filing thereof cannot be questioned. The attaching creditor can be in no better position, unless by virtue of the statute. It provides as follows: “A mort- gage of personal property is void as against creditors of the mortgagor and subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers of the property in good faith for value, unless the original, or an authenticated copy thereof, be filed by depositing the same in the office of the register of deeds of the county where the property mortgaged, or any part thereof, is at such time situated.” The invalidity of the mortgage is claimed, not by a subsequent purchaser
