Defiance Mach. Works v. Trisler
| Decision Date | 23 February 1886 |
| Citation | 21 Mo.App. 69 |
| Parties | DEFIANCE MACHINE WORKS, Defendant in Error, v. J. W. TRISLER, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ERROR to the Washington County Circuit Court, JOHN L. THOMAS Judge.
Affirmed.
JOHN JOHNSTON, for the plaintiff in error: The defendant had no notice of the conditions of the sale. Rev. Stat., sect. 2507. The deed of trust covered the machine as soon as it was placed in the factory. Wright v. Bircher, 72 Mo 179; Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459; Frank v. Playter, 73 Mo. 673; Rutherford v Stewart, 79 Mo. 216.
R. T. STILLWELL, for the defendant in error: The title to the machine did not pass. Benj. on Sales, sect. 320; Dennefelser v. Weigel, 27 Mo. 45; Ridgeway v. Kennedy, 52 Mo. 24; 21 Am. Law Reg. 217; Ballard v. Burgett, 40 N.Y. 314; Austin v. Dye, 46 N.Y. 500; Enlow v. Klein, 79 Pa.St. 488. And if the vendor has been guilty of no laches he may reclaim the goods, even from an innocent purchaser. Griffin v. Pugh, 44 Mo. 326; Little v. Page, 44 Mo. 412.
This is an action of replevin for a machine called a hub lathe; submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts. The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff. The facts were that the defendant was a beneficiary in a deed of trust, duly recorded, embracing the hub factory of Shuman, Hickman & Company, at Potosi, Missouri, which deed, by its terms, covered any machinery, tools, and fixtures which might thereafter be acquired by Shuman, Hickman & Company, and placed on the premises; that thereafter the plaintiff sold to Shuman, Hickman & Company, on credit, to be paid for in installments, the hub lathe in question, by a written contract of sale, which provided that the title should remain in the plaintiff until all the installments were paid, and delivered it to Shuman, Hickman & Company, who placed it in their hub factory among the property covered by the deed of trust above mentioned; that this conditional contract of sale was never recorded; that thereafter, default having been made in the payment of the debt secured by the deed of trust, the trustee in the deed, in pursuance of the terms thereof, sold the property embraced therein, and also assumed to sell the hub lathe in controversy, the defendant being the purchaser; that no part of the purchase money agreed to be paid by Shuman, Hickman & Company to the plaintiff for the hub lathe has been paid. Upon these facts, the circuit court, sitting as a jury, rendered a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
Prior to 1877 the law in this state was, that where personal property was sold and delivered upon an agreement, the title should not pass until the purchase money was paid, no title passed until this condition was fulfilled, and the vendor, if guilty of no laches, might recover it, even from an innocent purchaser of the vendee. Parmlec v. Catherwood, 36 Mo. 480; Little v. Page, 44 Mo. 412; Griffin v Pugh, 44 Mo. 326; Ridgeway v. Kennedy, 52 Mo. 24; Matthews v. McElroy, 79 Mo. 202; Kingsland-Ferguson Manufacturing Compang v. Culp, 85 Mo. 548. This rule was found to be productive of fraud, injurious to innocent purchasers of personal property, and of a tendency to obstruct the free transfer of such property. It was, therefore, repealed by the legislature, in 1877, by a statute which is now embodied in the Revised Statutes, forming the second clause of section 2505, and the whole of sections 2507 and 2508. The provisions of this statute, so far as applicable to the case before us, are as follows: " And no sale of goods and chattels, where possession is delivered to the vendee, shall be subject to any condition whatever as against creditors of the vendee, or subsequent purchasers from such vendee in good faith, unless such condition shall be evidenced by writing, executed and acknowledged by the vendee, and recorded as now provided in cases of mortgages of personal property." Rev. Stat., sect. 2505. " In...
To continue reading
Request your trial