Forgan v. Bridges
Decision Date | 02 March 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 4000.,4000. |
Citation | 281 S.W. 134 |
Parties | FORGAN et al. v. BRIDGES et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Frank Kelley, Judge.
Replevin by David R. Forgan and others, trustees of the Commercial Credit Trust, against George H. Bridges and others composing the firm of Davison Bros. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. M. Haw, of Charleston, and Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellants.
Russell & Joslyn, of Charleston, for respondents.
Action in replevin for possession of two automobiles. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.
Plaintiffs' right of recovery rests upon the contention that the title to the two automobiles is in plaintiffs, and hence they are entitled to the possession of them. The real contest in this case is between plaintiffs and defendant Bridges, and he claims under a chattel mortgage executed by Davison Bros., a partnership engaged in selling automobiles at retail in Charleston, Mo. This chattel mortgage was regular on its face and duly recorded. Davisons, the mortgagors, maintained a garage in the town of Charleston and kept the two automobiles in question and others on exhibition in their garage for sale at retail. The Davisons had secured these automobiles from the Spalding Motor Company of St. Louis, who bought automobiles from the factories and disposed of them to retail dealers. The manner in which this disposition to Davidson Bros. was made lies at the bottom of this controversy. Defendant Bridges claims under a chattel mortgage executed by Davison Bros. while the automobiles were on display by them in their garage and, as far as known to Bridges, they were the owners thereof and holding them for sale in the usual way. Plaintiffs claim under what is called trust receipts and drafts. They are the same as to both cars except as to the amounts and description of the cars. One of these trust receipts is as follows:
The draft is as follows:
Written across face:
These trust receipts and drafts were not recorded and Bridges had no knowledge that they were in existence at the time he took the chattel mortgage under which he claims. At the time Davisons secured the automobiles from the Spalding Motor Company, they paid to the Spalding Company 15 per cent. of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLeod Nash Motors v. Commercial Credit Trust
...there derived title from the manufacturer, and not from the dealer who gave the trust receipt to the plaintiff. In Forgan v. Bridges (Mo. App.) 281 S. W. 134, the party who took the trust receipt held title when the dealer gave it and obtained possession. The same situation was present in C......
-
Farmers State Bank of Cameron v. Garrison
...3 S.W. 22; Thompson v. Foerstel, 10 Mo.App. 290; Manhattan Brass Co. v. Webster Glass & Queensware Co., 37 Mo.App. 145; Forgan v. Bridges, Mo.App., 281 S.W. 134, 136; Pritchard v. Hooker, 114 Mo.App. 605, 90 S.W. 415; Liles v. Potter, Mo.App., 206 S.W. 582; Martz v. Big Horn Glass Co., Mo.A......
-
Gross v. Merchants-Produce Bank
...121; State ex rel. Cantley v. Akin, 224 Mo.App. 114, 22 S.W.2d 836; Bruce v. Kays, 222 Mo.App. 77, 1 S.W.2d 214; Forgan v. Bridges, 222 Mo.App. 84, 281 S.W. 134, 14 C.J.S. Chattel Mortgages Sec. 262, page 874. Waiver is an affirmative defense. Civil Rule 55.10. Respondents neither pleaded w......
-
Taube v. Ingraham
...trust receipts or were relied on or cited by the District Court is indicated. The first such Missouri decision is Forgan v. Bridges, Mo.App.Springfield, 1926, 281 S.W. 134. Therein, the plaintiffs claimed automobiles under unrecorded trust receipts. Defendant's claim was bottomed on subsequ......