Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/243

security of the mortgage; and, on the other hand, a creditor who had trusted the mortgagor after the execution and delivery of the unfiled mortgage, relying on the apparent freedom of the property from liens, would lose all right to protection by the subsequent filing of the mortgage, although: not filed until after the expiration of a year perhaps, provided it were filed before such creditor should seize the property. The language of the statute is not that the mortgage is void as against creditors “until” it is filed. This would warrant the construction that the property could be seized by creditors and the mortgage ignored until it had been filed. The statute make the mortgage void “unless” it is filed. This indicates a purpose to fix the rights of those who in the future shall deal with the owner on the faith that the property is unincumbered. As to those persons it is not merely void until it is filed; it is void for all time,—void just the same whether they seize the property before or after the mortgage is filed. We have seen that the word “creditors” cannot have its broadest significance in this statute. No court has pretended to hold that the mere fact that the person was a creditor during the interval between the execution and filing of the mortgage would entitle him to claim the benefit of the act. It is unjustifiable to place upon the statute the construction limiting the meaning of this word to those who have actually seized the property before the mortgage is filed. It would not be in harmony with the spirit of the law. It would defeat its purpose, which is protection to those who act in ignorance of the unfiled security, by taking that protection from those who, having dealt with the mortgagor after the execution and before the filing of the mortgage on the theory that the property was unincumbered, should fail to seize the property before the mortgage should be filed; and, on the other hand, it would extend the protection of the statute to those who have no claim to its protection because they did not act after its execution, but before,—who have not been prejudiced in the least by its being kept from record; it would extend to this class protection should such creditors levy upon the mortgaged property