Equitable Credit Co. v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 31 October 1927
• Docket Number: 274
• Citation: 299 S.W. 747,175 Ark. 205
• Parties: EQUITABLE CREDIT COMPANY. v. ROGERS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

299 S.W. 747

175 Ark. 205

EQUITABLE CREDIT COMPANY. v. ROGERS

No. 274

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 31, 1927

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; E. D. Robertson, Judge reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

A. D Whitehead, for appellant.

W. G Dinning, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

The facts out of which the present litigation arises are very similar to those set out in the opinions in the cases of Davis & Worrell v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 153 Ark. 626, 241 S.W. 44; Commercial Credit Company v. Blanks Motor Company, 174 Ark. 274, 294 S.W. 999; and Standard Motors Finance Company v. Mitchell Auto Company, 173 Ark. 875, 293 S.W. 1026. The appellee in the first case mentioned and appellants in the others were foreign corporations engaged in the business of buying notes executed in this State, but payable in other States, given in partial payment of second-hand automobiles and motor trucks, the method of procedure of the corporations being practically the same in all cases.

The facts in the instant case may be summarized as follows: The Mott Motor Company, a motor car dealer at Elaine, Arkansas, on October 8, 1924, sold to Mrs. M. E. Van Lake a Ford touring car for the price, including "service charges," of $ 525.24, of which $ 131.54 was paid in cash and the balance was evidenced by the note of the purchaser of even date with the contract of sale, for the sum of $ 394, payable to the Equitable Credit Company, hereinafter referred to as the company, at its office in New Orleans, Louisiana. The meaning of this service charge was shown in the opinion in the case of Standard Motors Finance Company v. Mitchell Auto Company, supra. The company was not interested in the business of the Mott Motor Company further than that it had an arrangement with that company whereby it bought certain notes from the Mott Motor Company which that company had taken from purchasers of cars, blanks being furnished to Mott Motor Company by the New Orleans Company for that purpose.

The purchasers of the cars were required to make a financial report on the blanks furnished by the New Orleans company to the Mott Motor Company, and these statements and contracts of sale, with the purchase money notes forming a part of them, were submitted to the New Orleans company, at its office in that city, for approval, and the company bought in New Orleans such of these notes as it pleased.

The note and contract of Mrs. Van Lake were forwarded by the Mott Motor Company to the office of the New Orleans company, where the purchase of the note and contract was completed by the remittance to the Mott Motor Company of the agreed price.

Mrs. Van Lake assigned her contract of purchase to Dr. J. R. Rogers, the written consent of the New Orleans company having first been obtained. Rogers made default in the payments of the installments of the purchase money note, which were to be made at the rate of $ 32.84 monthly, according to the allegations of the complaint which was filed by the company in the replevin suit brought to recover possession of the car.

Rogers defended on the ground, among others, that the facts out of which the transaction arose, and which will be stated in further detail, constituted the doing of business by the foreign corporation, which admitted that it had not complied with the laws of this State authorizing it to do business in this State. The cause was submitted to the jury upon this question only, and from the verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant Rogers is this appeal.

Exceptions were saved to the modification of certain instructions requested by the plaintiff company, which we do not discuss, for the reason that, in our opinion, the undisputed facts show that the appellant company was not doing business in this State, and that question should not have been submitted to the jury.

It was...