Green.

Van Buskirk

Facts:
Bates, a resident of New York, owned safes in Illinois on which he gave a chattel
mortgage to secure a debt in favor of Van Burskirk and others.
Two days after, Green, also a resident of New York and a creditor of Bates, sued in the
Illinois Court a writ of attachment, caused it to be levied on the safes of Bates,
got judgment in the attachment, and had the safes sold in satisfaction of his debt.
At the time of the levy of this attachment the mortgage had not been recorded in Illinois;
nor had possession of the property been delivered under it; nor had the attaching creditor
notice of its existence.
After the levy of the attachment, Green received notice of the mortgage and Van
Buskirks claim under it. The latter was also informed of the attachment but they did not
make himself party to it, nor did he contest the right of Green to levy on the safe,
which was authorized under Illinois law.
Under Illinois law, any debtor can sue out a writ of attachment against a non-
resident debtor. Said law also provide that mortgages of personal property are void as
against 3rd persons, unless acknowledged and recorded, and unless the property be
delivered to and remain with the mortgagee.
Van Buskirk sued Green in the New York Courts for taking and converting the safes, sold
under the attachment.
Green pleaded in bar the attachment proceeding in Illinois.
The New York Court ruled that the New York law was to govern the case and not the law
of Illinois, although the property was situated there because under New York law, title
to the safes passed on execution and delivery of the mortgage.
The Green appealed, arguing that the Illinois judgment had been denied full faith
and credit.

Issue: Whether the proceedings in the Illinois court have effect over the properties located
in Illinois and the parties who are all citizens of New York?

Held:
YES. The New York court is required to recognize that title to the safe was transferred
under the lawful Illinois sale.
Illinois had dominion over property located within the state and had the right to regulate
its transfer and subject it to process and execution. Each state has the right to regulate
the transfer of property, both personal and real, within its jurisdiction, and this
right exists and may be exercised as to personal property of non-residents, if within
the state, as well as residents.
The fiction of law that the domicile of the owner draws too it his personal estate wherever
it may happen to be, yields whenever the actual situs of the property should be
examined.
By the laws of Illinois, an attachment on personal property will take precedence
of an unrecorded mortgage executed in another State were record is not necessary,
 though owners of the chattels, the attaching creditor, and the mortgage creditor, are all
residents of such other State.
The state which has dominion over property located therein has the right to regulate its
transfer and subject it to process and execution.