Capitol Stores, Inc. v. Storms-Green Const. Co., STORMS-GREEN

• Decision Date: 16 May 1961
• Docket Number: STORMS-GREEN,No. 30544,30544
• Citation: 346 S.W.2d 549
• Parties: CAPITOL STORES, INC. (Plaintiff), Respondent, v.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Defendant), Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 549

346 S.W.2d 549

CAPITOL STORES, INC. (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. STORMS-GREEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Defendant), Appellant.

No. 30544.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 16, 1961.

Donald B. Clark, Campbell & Clark, Kansas City, J. Richard Roberts, Roberts & Roberts, Farmington, for appellant.

Smith & Colson, David L. Colson, Farmington, for respondent.

RUDDY, Judge.

This is an action in replevin for the possession of tires, used on heavy earthmoving and excavating machines, sold by plaintiff, Capitol Stores, Inc., to Dale Bloom, who had assigned and transferred all of his right, title and interest in said tires to defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, and Clark Construction Company. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff requiring defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, to deliver possession of said tires to plaintiff and if delivery of said tires could not be made, plaintiff was to recover and have judgment against said defendant for $5,100.95, the value of said tires, and damages in the sum of $106.75 for the taking and detention of said tires.

The cause as to the right of possession of the tires was tried by the court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts. After the court determined that plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession of said tires from defendant, it received evidence as to the value of the tires sought to be replevined.

The agreed statement of facts is as follows:

'Now on this 15th day of October, 1950, come the parties hereto, Capitol Stores, Inc., by its attorney of record, David L. Colson, and Storms-Green Construction Company, defendant, by its attorneys of record, J. Richard Roberts and Donald B. Clark, and in open court stipulate and agree that this cause may be submitted to the court upon the following statements of facts:

'1. * * * Dale Bloom, commenced work on the highway project in St. Francois County, Missouri, in December of 1957, and left the project in October of 1959, the said project being in progress throughout said period of time.

'2. Upon the date in December of 1957 when * * * Dale Bloom, commenced work on the said highway project in St. Francois County, Missouri, he advised defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, that all of his debts owed at said date had been consolidated in one loan from a Kansas bank, and at the request of * * * Dale Bloom, defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, thereafter forwarded to the said Kansas bank the sums of money due * * * Dale Bloom, by reason of his work upon the said highway project.

'3. * * * Dale Bloom, purchased tires from plaintiff, Capitol Stores, Inc., subject to the instruments attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and during the year 1958 some tires purchased by * * * Dale Bloom, from plaintiff, Capitol Stores, Inc., and listed on Exhibit A were shipped by plaintiff to * * * Dale Bloom, at the said highway project in Flat River, St. Francois County, Missouri.

'4. Exhibit A was recorded by plaintiff in Shawnee County, Kansas, within 30 days following the date thereof, Shawnee County, Kansas, being the county of purchase of the said tires.

'5. Exhibit A was not filed or recorded by plaintiff in any county or city within the State of Missouri.

'6. Prior to December 1, 1958, plaintiff, Capitol Stores, Inc., had actual knowledge of the fact that * * * Dale Bloom, had taken the tires purchased from plaintiff to St. Francois County, Missouri, and was engaged in work upon a highway project in said county and state.

'7. The instrument marked Exhibit B was executed by the parties and on the date as set out in the said exhibit, and the same was recorded on February 16, 1959, in St. Francois County, Missouri.

'8. Prior to executing Exhibit B on December 26, 1958, * * * Dale Bloom, furnished to defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, invoices and other evidences of indebtedness which * * * Dale Bloom, represented to be a complete accounting of all indebtedness due and owing by him and incurred in the preparation for and work upon the said highway construction project in St. Francois County, Missouri. The indebtedness due Capitol Stores, Inc., by * * * Dale Bloom, was not included in the said accounting.

'9. All of the tires in the possession of defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, on May 7, 1959, the date of service upon defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, by the Sheriff of St. Francois County, Missouri, of the writ of replevin herein, are still in the possession of defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company.

'10. Defendant, Storms-Green Construction Company, incurred the expense of an insurance premium in the amount of $260.00 for a re-delivery bond filed herein, and by reason of this action, and defendant, Storms-Green Construction, further incurred the expense of attorney fees in the defense of this replevin action.'

Exhibit A, referred to in the agreed statement of facts, was a conditional sales agreement executed by Dale Bloom and taken by plaintiff as security for payment of the unpaid balance due on the purchase price of the tires. As shown in the agreed statement of facts this conditional sales agreement was recorded by plaintiff in Shawnee County, Kansas, and was not filed or recorded by plaintiff in any county or city within the State of Missouri.

Exhibit B, referred to in the agreed statement of facts, was executed on December 26, 1958, by and between Storms-Green Construction Company and Clark Construction Company as parties of the first part and Dale Bloom as the second party. The agreement recited that the first parties had been awarded a contract by the Missouri State Highway Commission for the improvement of U. S. Route 67 through portions of St. Francois County, Missouri, and that the first parties had 'sublet certain parts of said contract' to Dale Bloom on November 23, 1957.

It was further recited in said agreement that the contract between the Missouri State Highway Commission and first parties provided for substantial penalties if the contract was not performed within a specified period of time; that Dale Bloom was 'behind on his part of the sub-contract and is owing various obligations incurred upon the contract which he is unable to pay at this time and for which First Parties may be liable under their bond to the State Highway Commission' and 'in order to avoid any greater loss than necessary in having that part of sub-contract awarded to Second Party completed,' the parties entered into an agreement, the pertinent parts of which are as follows:

'* * * Now, Therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by each of the parties hereto, and in consideration of the others executing this agreement, it is hereby mutually agreed between the parties:

'1. Effective December 26, 1958 First Parties shall take over and complete all of that part of the aforesaid contract which was awarded to Second Party, and Second Party agrees that First Parties shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in completing said contract.

'2. First Parties agree to assume and pay all bills incurred by Second Party in performing the work which he has already performed on this contract and for which First Parties would be liable on their bond to the State Highway Commission.

'3. Second Party hereby sells, assigns and transfers all right, title, interest or equity in and to all construction equipment, parts, supplies or other merchandise which he now has on the job.'

Thereafter, said agreement provided that the first parties would hire the second party to perform work on the job at a salary of $150 per week so long as his services were satisfactory to the first parties. It was further provided in said agreement that at the completion of the contract sublet to Dale Bloom there would be a final accounting between the first parties and Dale Bloom. The details of this provision are not pertinent to any issues raised by the parties and for this reason are omitted.

Defendant relies on a number of points for reversal of the trial court's judgment. In view of our ultimate holding, we need only discuss one of the points relied on by said defendant. It is the contention of defendant that it is beyond question that plaintiff had knowledge of, acquiesced and assisted in the removal of the tires to the State of Missouri. Under the circumstances, it contends that plaintiff had to file or record its security instrument at the location to which the property had been removed in order for it to have priority rights over third parties who assert title or subsequent lien over the property in question.

We said in the case of Wisdom v. Keithley, 237 Mo.App. 76, 167 S.W.2d 450, loc. cit. 456, that:

'The great weight of authority, with which Missouri is in full accord, is that a chattel mortgage, properly executed and recorded according to the law of the state where the mortgage is executed and the property is located, will, if valid in such state, be likewise held valid as against existing creditors and subsequent purchasers in another state to which the property may be permanently removed by the mortgagor without the mortgagee's consent, unless the mortgage or transaction is of a character to contravene...