The burden is on plaintiff to establish his right to recover by a preponderance of the evidence. Kerfoot v. State Bank of Waterloo, Ill., et al., 14 Okla. 104, 77 P. 46. "[P]laintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title, or right to possession of the property, described in his pleadings, and cannot rely upon the weakness of title or right of possession in his adversary." Producers Supply Co. v. Sinclair Oil Gas Co., 105 Okla. 47, 231 P. 279.
s Acceptance Corp. v. Nuss, 195 La. 209 ( 196 So. 323); Langworthy v. Little, 12 Cush. (66 Mass.) 109; Wilson Co. v. Carson Co., 12 Md. 54; Silver v. McDonald, 172 Minn. 458 ( 215 N.W. 844); Mason City Production Credit Ass'n v. Sig Ellingson Co., 205 Minn. 537 ( 286 N.W. 713, certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 599 [ 60 Sup. Ct. 130, 84 L.Ed. 501]); National Bank of Commerce v. Morris, 114 Mo. 255 ( 21 S.W. 511, 19 L.R.A. 463, 35 Am. St. Rep. 754); Farmers Merchants State Bank v. Sutherlin, 93 Neb. 707 ( 141 N.W. 827, 46 L.R.A. [N. S.] 95, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1250); Cleveland Machine Works v. Lang, 67 N.H. 348 ( 31 A. 20,68 Am. St. Rep. 675); Parr v. Brady, 37 N.J. Law, 201; Hart v. Thompson, 37 N.M. 267 (21 Pac. [2d] 96, 87 A.L.R. 962); Goetschius v. Brightman, 245 N.Y. 186 ( 156 N.E. 660); Hornthal v. Burwell, 109 N.C. 10 ( 13 S.E. 721, 13 L.R.A. 740, 26 Am. St. Rep. 556); Wilson v. Rustad, 7 N.D. 330 ( 75 N.W. 260, 66 Am. St. Rep. 649); Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Ohio St. 134 (70 Am. Dec. 62); Kerfoot v. State Bank of Waterloo, 14 Okla. 104 ( 77 P. 46); Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Ainslie, 38 S.D. 472 ( 161 N.W. 1001); Bankers' Finance Corp. v. Locke Massey Motor Co., 170 Tenn. 28 ( 91 S.W. [2d] 297); Taylor v. Boardman, 25 Vt. 581; Craig v. Williams, 90 Va. 500 ( 180 S.W. 899, 44 Am. St. Rep. 934, but see Virginia Code of 1919, § 5197 and Smith Motor Sales, Inc., v. Lay, 173 Va. 117 [3 S.E.2d 1901); Cunningham v. Donelson, 110 W. Va. 331 ( 158 S.E. 705); cf. Southern Finance Co. v. Zegar, 120 W. Va. 420 ( 198 S.E. 875); Yund v. First National Bank, 14 Wyo. 81 ( 82 P. 6); Shapard v. Hynes (C.C.A.), 104 Fed. 449 (52 L.R.A. 675). See, also, 64 L.R.A. 353; 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 385; L.R.A. 1917D, 942; 57 A.L.R. 702; 87 A.L.R. 973.
.L.R. 696; Mosko v. Matthews, 87 Colo. 55, 284 P. 1021; General Credit Corp. v. Rohde, 122 Conn. 100, 187 A. 676; In re Shannahan Hardware Co., 2 W.W.Harr., Del., 37, 118 A. 599; Smith's Transfer Storage Co. v. Reliable Stores Corp., 61 App.D.C. 106, 58 F.2d 511; Hopkins v. Hemsley, 53 Idaho 120, 22 P.2d 138; National Bond Investment Co. v. Larsh, 262 Ill. App. 363; First National Bank v. Ripley, 204 Iowa 590, 215 N.W. 647; Perkins v. National Bond Inv. Co., 224 Ky. 65, 5 S.W.2d 475; Silver v. McDonald, 172 Minn. 458, 215 N.W. 844; Finance Service Corp. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 235 S.W. 146; National Bank of Commerce v. Morris, 114 Mo. 255, 21 S.W. 511, 19 L.R.A. 463, 35 Am.St.Rep. 754; Farmers' Merchants' Bank v. Sutherlin, 93 Neb. 707, 141 N.W. 827, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 95, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 1250; Hart v. Oliver Farm Equipment Sales Co., 37 N.M. 267, 21 P.2d 96, 87 A.L.R. 962; Farmham v. Eichin, 230 App. Div. 639, 246 N.Y.S. 133; Wilson v. Rustad, 7 N.D. 330, 75 N.W. 260, 66 Am.St.Rep. 649; Kerfoot v. State Bank, 14 Okla. 104, 77 P. 46; Bankers' Finance Corporation v. Locke Massey Motor Co., 170 Tenn. 28, 91 S.W.2d 297; Cunningham v. Donelson, 110 W. Va. 331, 158 S.E. 705; and Yund v. First National Bank, 14 Wyo. 81, 82 P. 6. The general rule is stated in Corpus Juris, Volume 11, Page 424, as follows: "The great weight of authority is to the effect that a chattel mortgage, properly executed and recorded according to the law of the place where the mortgage is executed and the property is located, will, if valid there, be held valid even as against creditors and purchasers in good faith in another state to which the property is removed by the mortgagor, unless there is some statute in that state to the contrary, or unless the transaction contravenes the settled law or policy of the forum." For other statements of the general rule, see Restatement of The Law — Conflict of Laws, sec. 268, page 354; Jones on Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales, Bowers Edition, Vol. 1, sec. 299, page 479, Huddy Encyclopedia of Auto
KANE, J. This case was twice before the Supreme Court of the territory, and will be found reported in 14 Okla. 104, 77 P. 46, and 18 Okla. 10, 89 P. 206. Upon the first trial the court below, upon facts substantially the same as the agreed statement of facts now before us, decided the case in favor of the plaintiff in error here, the State Bank of Waterloo, and this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial. Upon second trial the judgment in favor of the defendant in error here was reversed, upon grounds that are apparent from the excerpts of the opinion of Mr. Justice Burwell, who prepared the same for the court: