General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Weinrich
Decision Date | 26 May 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 14894.,14894. |
Parties | GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. WEINRICH. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
Action by the General Motors Acceptance Corporation against E. H. Weinrich. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Bohling & Bohling of Sedalia, for appellant.
Paul Barnett, of Sedalia, for respondent.
This is a replevin suit for possession of an automobile. Plaintiff's rights depend upon the validity of a chattel mortgage which defendant gave thereon, The defense is that the mortgage is void be cause of usury. At the close of the evidence the trial court instructed the jury to find for defendant upon that question. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment on the very diet thus obtained.
Robert Reuter, a retail dealer in automobiles at Sedalia, advertised some secondhand cars for sale, and defendant called at Reuter's place of business to purchase one. None of them, however, suited him, but he did see a new car that caught his fancy, and he made overtures to buy it. He told Reuter he had an equity in some property in Windsor, Mo., and wanted to put this equity in as a cash payment and obtain time on the balance. The dealer and defendant went the next day to Windsor and examined the property. Defendant valued his equity at $800, and wanted to put it in at that amount, but Reuter thought it worth only $600, and they finally agreed on the value of the equity being $600, and for the same to go in the trade at that amount. The cash price of the automobile was $1,450, but, as defendant was not paying cash, the "time-selling price" was fixed at $1501.
Defendant turned the equity over to Reuter and executed to him the chattel mortgage in question. The mortgage recited that defendant had that day purchased the car of Reuter, mortgagee, "for the total time price of $1501," payable, "Cash on or before delivery $600, balance of $901" in a series of 12 installments, 11 of which were for $75.09 each, due respectively in one, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 months after date, and the twelfth for $75.01 due:2 months after date, "with interest thereon after maturity at the highest lawful rate."
Defendant also executed to Reuter his promissory note or "time price obligation," dated June 23, 1922, in which he promised to pay to the order of Robert Reuter the sum of $901 "at the time or times stated in the Schedule of payments hereon, at the office of General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Railway Exchange Building, Kansas City, Mo., with interest after maturity at the highest lawful rate." It was provided in said note that a default in the payment of any one or more of said installments rendered the whole note due and payable. The "schedule of payments" thus referred to was the same as that specified in the chattel mortgage.
Defendant then signed a "purchaser's statement," dated the same day, June 23, 1922, addressed to "Robert Reuter and to General Motors Acceptance Corporation," which recited that "in order to secure credit from the above-named dealer, and induce the abovenamed Acceptance Corporation to purchase any purchase money obligation" executed by him in connection with such credit, he gave his name, residence, business, income, place of keeping the automobile, and other particulars, together with a statement that he owned an equity of $36,000 in two farms, and of his ability tc pay the installments as they became due. Reuter then signed the following:
And he also signed the following indorsemeat printed on the back of the above-men.toned promissory note:
This invoice, and the above-mentioned "purchaser's statement," "dealer's recommendation," note and chattel mortgage, were mailed by Reuter to plaintiff at Kansas City, accompanied by a "Letter of Transmittal" as follows:
Owing to an error of a few cents made somewhere in the statement of payments, plaintiff refused the offering and returned it to Reuter, but after this was corrected the plaintiff, on June 29, 1922, purchased the security from Reuter, paying him therefor the sum of $850, which was at a discount of $51.
The following other facts appear in the record:
Plaintiff is a banking institution special.. izing in automobile paper. It buys notes, mortgages, contracts, and trade acceptances secured by automobiles. Dealers throughout the United States, in making sales of autobiles, may submit to plaintiff papers which the dealers take in making sales, and if the the papers are acceptable to plaintiff it buys them, but it reserves the right to refuse to take any paper, and does not purchase all papers submitted, but buys the paper or not as it chooses. It further appears that papers are submitted and looked over, and, if everything is acceptable and plaintiff desires to buy, its check is sent to the dealer making the sale; that investigation is made of the makers of the notes and also of the dealer selling the cars; that the dealer submits financial statements, and may immediately thereafter submit papers, but plaintiff does not have to buy what is submitted; that, after plaintiff has investigated, and it is found that both dealer and papers are satisfactory, then plaintiff buys the papers.
It further appears that plaintiff furnishes blanks to dealers regardless of whether the latter are accepted to do business with plaintiff or not; that plaintiff does not undertake or bind itself to purchase anything submitted by the dealer; that among these blanks are forms of mortgages and notes and other literature pertaining to the business; that plaintiff has a uniform schedule of rates that are in effect throughout all the states in the Union; that plaintiff has representatives working out of the Kansas City office, calling on dealers, asking them, in the regular routine of business, to sent their business to it, that is, to send notes that they take in the purchase of automobiles; that plaintiff furnished blank notes, mortgages, and supplies to Reuter; that plaintiff did not instruct Reuter what interest to charge, but did furnish him with a rate card showing the amount of charges on terms of that kind; that this rate card showed that, if the amount to be paid was $850, the note should be made for $901 where the payments were to run for 12 months; that Mr. Reuter, in preparing the mortgage,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mo. Finance Corp. v. Roos et al., 21846.
...there is usury. Puryear-Meyer Gro. Co. v. Cardwell Bank, 4 S.W. (2d) 489; Hyman v. Semmes, 26 Fed. (2d) 10; General Motors Accept. Corp. v. Weinrich, 262 S.W. 425, 218 Mo. App. 68; Wilson v. Wilson, 115 Mo. App. 641; Allen v. Newton, 266 S.W. 327, 219 Mo. App. 74; Tobin v. Newman, 271 S.W. ......
-
State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
...Nashville Terminals v. Tennessee Finance Co., 143 Tenn. 875; State ex rel. v. Boatmen's Bank, 48 Mo. 189; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich, 262 S.W. 425, 218 Mo. App. 68; Allen v. Newton, 266 S.W. 329, 219 Mo. App. 74. (b) The city is not the real party in interest and has no leg......
-
Bell v. Idaho Finance Co.
...v. Toney, 263 N.Y. 439, 189 N.E. 485, 91 A.L.R. 1100; Stevens v. Grossman, 100 Ind.App. 417, 196 N.E. 123; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich, 218 Mo.App. 68, 262 S.W. 425; Commercial Credit Co. v. Tarwater, 215 Ala. 123, 110 So. 39, 48 A.L.R. 1437; Hafer v. Spaeth, 22 Wash.2d 378,......
-
Kansas City v. Markham, 33030.
.... 99 S.W.2d 28. KANSAS CITY, a Municipal Corporation,. v. MELL R. MARKHAM, ISHMAEL S. O'DELL and BRYAN HERRING, ...726; State ex rel. v. Boatmen's Bank, 48 Mo. 189; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich, 218 Mo. App. 68, 262 ......