C. I. T. Corp. v. Seaney, Civil 4038
Decision Date | 19 December 1938 |
Docket Number | Civil 4038 |
Citation | 85 P.2d 713,53 Ariz. 72 |
Parties | C. I. T. CORPORATION, Appellant, v. S. W. SEANEY, Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of CARL E. MOLLING and HERLINDA B. MOLLING, Doing Business as MOLLING APPLIANCE COMPANY, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Wm. G. Hall, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. T G. McKesson, for Appellant.
Messrs Krucker & Fowler, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court denying a petition of the C.I.T. Corporation, hereinafter called petitioner, for the reclamation of eighteen Servel refrigerators from the possession of S.W. Seaney, as assignee for the benefit of the creditors of Carl E. Molling and Herlinda B. Molling, doing business as Molling Appliance Company, hereinafter called the company, and from the court's order denying a new trial.
The facts of the case are not in dispute, and may be stated as follows: Carl E. Molling and Herlinda B. Molling for several years last past have been engaged in the electric appliance business in Tucson, under the name of Molling Appliance Company. The company had an agency for the sale of Servel electric refrigerators, and during the year 1937 and a part of the year 1938 arrangements were made by the company with the Servel factory at Evansville, Indiana, and with petitioner, for the handling of said agency and the financing of the company therein. This arrangement was, in substance as follows: The Servel company shipped to the company at Tucson a number of its electric refrigerators, shipper's order, bill of lading with draft attached. The company was unable to pay the draft so it paid to petitioner ten per cent. of the factory invoice price of the refrigerators, together with a sum sufficient to pay the freight charges thereon, whereupon the petitioner issued its check for the entire amount of the draft, and secured the bill of lading. At the same time the company executed certain so-called trust receipts in favor of petitioner. These trust receipts are all similar in form. On the face of the receipt is a description of the refrigerators covered thereby, together with the invoice price. On the back is found the following language:
Attached to the trust receipt, but with a line perforated so that it might easily be detached therefrom, was the following document:
And on the face of the document was endorsed "Accepted, Payable at office C.I.T. Corporation, 52 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.," which acceptance was signed by the company in proper form. None of these trust receipts were ever filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder of Pima county. The Servel company also executed and delivered to petitioner a bill of sale directly covering the refrigerators involved herein. The refrigerators were then taken possession of by the company and placed on its floor for sale to purchasers in the ordinary manner.
Thereafter, and on the 21st day of March, 1938, the company made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, under the provisions of chapter 6 (section 176 et seq.), Revised Code 1928, and S.W. Seaney was appointed as assignee under the statute, and duly qualified and took possession of the eighteen refrigerators which were the subject matter of this proceeding, whereupon petitioner filed its petition claiming ownership and right of possession thereof, and a judgment being finally rendered against it on its petition, brought the matter before us for review.
There are two questions of law for our consideration. The first and most important is as to the nature of the trust agreement above set forth. It is the contention of petitioner that it was either a consignment for sale by petitioner to the company, or a bailment. It is the position of the assignee that it was either a chattel mortgage or a conditional sale agreement. If the document be of the nature contended for by petitioner, it was the owner of the refrigerators and entitled to their possession as against an assignee for the benefit of creditors. If, on the other hand, it was an unrecorded chattel mortgage or conditional bill of sale, it was not entitled to such possession or ownership as against innocent purchasers and bona fide creditors, by virtue of the provisions of sections 2890, 2891 and 2330, Revised Code 1928, which read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co.
...arrangement. We know of only one case in this jurisdiction which deals with this type of agreement. In C.I.T. Corporation v. Seaney, 53 Ariz. 72, 85 P.2d 713 (1938), our Supreme Court 'The real question is whether or not, as a matter of substance and not of form, the interest * * * in the p......
-
Tolleson Union High School District v. Kincaid
... ... HORACE KINCAID, Appellee Civil No. 3970Supreme Court of ArizonaDecember 19, 1938 ... APPEAL ... ...
-
Jeffrey C. Stone, Inc. v. Cent. & Monroe, L.L.C. (In re Mortgs. Ltd.)
...under the common law, have never been favored where rights were acquired at the cost of general creditors.” C.I.T. Corp. v. Seaney, 53 Ariz. 72, 85 P.2d 713, 716 (1938). 8. Land Title Ins. Corp. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 207 P.3d 141, 145–46 (Colo.2009) (“If a payor fails to timely record......