Green v. Van Buskirk

Bates, Van Buskirk, and Green were all citizens of New York. Van Buskirk and Green were creditors of Bates. Bates gave Van Buskirk a chattel mortgage on iron safes that were in Illinois. Two days later, without knowledge of the chattel mortgage, Green sued on a writ of attachment in Illinois for the iron safes, levied on the safes, and then had the safes sold to satisfy the judgment in the attachment suit. The Illinois suit was not contested by Van Buskirk, who was not a party to that suit but who could have made an appearance and contested Green’s right to levy on the iron safes. Under Illinois law, chattel mortgages are void against third parties unless and until they are acknowledged and recorded—neither of which occurred. Thereafter, Van Buskirk sued Green in a New York state court for the value of the iron safes mortgaged to Van Buskirk by Bates. The New York court ruled for Van Buskirk and held that New York law—not Illinois law—governed, even though the iron safes were in Illinois, because New York was the domicile of the owner of the iron safes at the time the conflicting claims to the safes originated. The New York court held that title to the iron safes passed to Van Buskirk by execution of the chattel mortgage. The New York appellate courts affirmed. Green asserted a constitutional issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and appealed to the United States Supreme Court.