2610 ARTICLE :66

recording thereof, unless every instrument and writing operating as a
defeasance of the same, or explanatory of its being designed to have the
effect only of a mortgage or conditional deed, be also therewith recorded.

Bills of sale of automobiles not void as to creditors under this section, because of
consignment agreement; no defeasances. Distinction between conditional sale and
consignment. Rights of consignor superior to those" of bankrupt's general creditors or
trustee. In re Sachs, 21 Fed. (2nd), (Dist. Ct. Md.), 984.

Consignment agreement executed at same time as bill of sale and operating as de-
feasance must also be recorded to secure the benefits of the statute. In re Sachs, 30 Fed.
(2nd), 510.

Recordation of bill of sale in compliance with statutes affords constructive notice to
all persons who may be affected by it, unless limited by some other instrument intended
as a defeasance, which is not recorded, in which case the beneficiary loses his rights
and such record does not give constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers.
Winakur v. Sapourn, 156 Md. 672.

Failure to record defeasance causes beneficiary to lose benefit which recording would
give him over subsequent bona fide purchasers; contra, as to subsequent grantee with
notice. McComas v. Amos, 29 Md. 159.

Although defeasance was not recorded, deed is valid as between the parties, and
equity has jurisdiction to enforce same as a lien in nature of a mortgage. Harrison v.
Morton, 87 Md. 674. See also Owens v. Miller, 29 Md. 159. ' '

This section does not apply to the case of deed absolute upon its face, and where
no other instrument was executed, though deed was intended merely as security. Ing
v. Brown, 3 Md. Ch. 522.

Agreement held not to be a defeasance, and hence, not required to be recorded under
this section. Snowden v. Pitcher, 45 Md. 264. And see Waters v. Riggin, 19 Md. 553.

What is a defeasance? Hoffman v. Gosnell, 75 Md. 588.

Design of this section. Gill v, Griffith, 2 Md. Ch. 286.

This section applied. Waters v...Riggin, 19 Md. 553; Charles v. Claggett, 3 Md. 89.

Act of 1825, ch. 203, held to have no application. Preston v. Leighton, 6 Md. 98.

Cited but not construed in Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill, 361.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 2. 1912, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1825, ch. 50. 1872, ch. 213.
1882, ch. 471. 1924, ch. 224, sec. 2.

2. No mortgage or deed in the nature of a mortgage shall be a lien or
charge on any estate or property for any other or different principal sum
or sums of money than the principal sum or. sums that shall appear on
the face of such mortgage and be specified and recited therein, and par-
ticularly mentioned and expressed to be secured thereby at the time of
executing the same; and no mortgage or deed in the nature of a mortgage
shall be a lien or charge for any sum or sums of money to be loaned or
advanced after the same is executed, except from the time said loan or
advance shall be actually made; and no mortgage to secure future loans or
advances shall be valid unless the amount or amounts of the same and the
times -when they are to be made shall be specifically stated in said mortgage;
this not to apply to mortgages to indemnify the mortgagee against loss from
being endorser or security, nor to any mortgages given by brewers to mal-
sters to secure the payment to the latter of debts contracted by the former
for malt and other material used in the making of malt liquors; nor are
the provisions hereof intended to apply to deeds of trust, in the nature of
mortgages or any other deeds of trust to secure bonds, notes or other
obligations.

Application of this section.

This section held to have no application to a deed of trust for benefit of creditors.
If such a deed were held to be a mortgage, this section would apply. Bank of Com-
merce v. Lanahan, 45 Md. 408.

This section has no application to judgments. Robinson v. Consolidated Real Estate,
etc., Co., 55 Md. 110...

Mortgages to building associations are not within provisions of act of 1825, ch. 50,
or if they are, that act as to them is repealed. Robertson v. American Homestead Assn.,
10 Md. 408; Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 318; Franz v. Teutonia Bldg. Assn.,
24. Md. 269.