Weber & Oo., purporting to convey and mortgage all of the goods in the store now occupied by A. E. Weber & Co., which pretended chattel mortgage was filed in the office of the register of deeds of Richland county, April 30, 1883; that said instrument was, at the time of the execution thereof, and ever since has been fraudulent and void, and that no title by virtue of it was ever conveyed to, or vested in, said plaintiff.

At the trial the plaintiff called the register of deeds, proved that the mortgage was one of the files of his office, and then offered it in evidence. The defendant objected to its introduction on the ground it had not been sufficiently proved. The objection was overruled and an exception taken. The chattel mortgage on its face appeared to have been signed in the presence of two witnesses, and there was an indorsement of filing on it by the register. The section of the C. C. with reference to the filing of chattel mortgages and the section of the C. C. Pro., as to the admissibility of instruments are stated in the first head-note.

The condition of the mortgage on the question of expenses is stated in the second head-note. The plaintiff proved that he had been in possession of the property under the mortgage about two months before it was taken from him by the defendant. He then offered to show that he had hired men and paid them for holding the property during this period. The defendant objected to this on the ground that it was immaterial, and because the mortgage did not provide for any expenses, excepting foreclosure sale. The court overruled the objection and permitted the fact of hiring to be shown, and the amount that had been paid for’ the service. The court also instructed the jury that if they found for the plaintiff he was entitled to recover the amount of the mortgage debt and interest thereon, with such expenses as were necessarily incurred by him in holding possession of the property under the mortgage. The defendant excepted to the instruction and the ruling of the court on the admissibility of the evidence.

To have entitled the alleged chattel mortgage to be introduced in evidence against the defendant, who represented the creditors of the mortgagor, it was necessary to show that it was “ signed by the mortgagor in the presence of two persons who signed the same as witnesses thereto.” C. C., §§ 1749,1750,1744,1745 ; Gal-pin v. Abbott, 6 Mich. 17; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray, 391; Zeigler v. Shomo, 78 Pa. St. 357; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis. 449; Parrott v. Shanbhut, 5 Minn. 323; Williard v. Cramer, 36 la. 22; Clarke v. Graham, 6 Wheat. 577 ; § 493, C. O. Pro.

Plaintiff was not, in any event, entitled to recover for expenses paid in holding the property. O. C., § 1710; Keith v. Haggart (Dak.), 33 N. W. Rep. 465.

The “ expenses ’ ’ provided for in the mortgage not being definite, the mortgagee is confined to such only as he could legally incur.

Section 493, C. C. Pro., provides that every instrument acknowledged or proved, and recorded, is admissible without further proof. This section is applicable to chattel mortgages, for such an instrument, duly filed is as much a record as if it had beeu transcribed on the books of the county. Section 1749, C. C., declares that if the mortgage is duly witnessed, “no further proof” is required to entitle it to be filed, and section 493 refers to instruments acknowledged, “ or proved.” The mortgage, therefore, or a certified copy, was admissible without proof of execution. 1 Whart. Ev., § 740 ; Houghton v. Jones, 1 Wall. 702; Younge v. Gilbeau, 3 id. 636; Sannels v. Barrowscale, 104 Mass. 207; Clark v. Troy, 20 Cal. 219.

The answer, however, raises no issue upon the execution of the mortgage, that is admitted.

The instructions on the measure of damages in view of the provisions of the mortgage were correct. This was a lawful subject of contract.