Kingsland v. Drum

Decision Date31 October 1883
Citation80 Mo. 646
PartiesKINGSLAND et al. v. DRUM, Administrator, et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.--HON. D. L. HAWKINS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Wilson Cramer for appellants.

The evidence shows that appellants took the mortgage in good faith, for the purpose of securing a just debt. The law declared by this court in Wangler v. Franklin, 70 Mo. 659, and Robbins v. Phillips, 68 Mo. 100, was radically changed by act of the legislature of April 2nd, 1877. R. S., § 2507. Assuming that the evidence established a conditional sale, the condition was not evidenced by writing, as required by the foregoing act, and was, consequently, void, and the petition, failing to allege the execution of such writing, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The petition does not claim that the sale to Eisenberg was on condition, but that his vendors should retain a vendor's lien until the purchase notes were paid. The evidence shows that possession of the machine and horse-power was delivered to the purchaser, and this operated as a waiver of the vendor's lien. Sigerson v. Kahmann, 39 Mo. 206; S. W. Freight, etc., v. Stanard, 44 Mo. 71; S. W. Freight, etc., v. Plant, 45 Mo. 517; Benjamin on Sales, (2 Am. Ed.) § 799.

R. B. Oliver for respondents.

The evidence shows there was a contract or agreement between respondent and Eisenberg at the time of the sale of the machine and power, that the latter was to have the use and possession of the same, with a lien for the purchase price in favor of the former, until fully paid for. Such contract was binding, both on the parties to it and on all taking the property with notice of the same. Parsons on Contracts, (6 Ed.) side p. 494; Webb v. Ins. Co., 14 Mo. 3; Johnson v. Jeffries, 30 Mo. 423; Wangler v. Franklin, 70 Mo. 659. This court will not disturb a finding of the lower court because it is against the weight of evidence. Rea v. Ferguson, 72 Mo. 225; Price v. Evans, 49 Mo. 396; Penn v. Lewis, 12 Mo. 161. The trial court should give such relief as the pleading and facts warrant. Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 161; Merchants B'k v. Evans, 51 Mo. 335; Wright v. Barr, 53 Mo. 340; White v. Rush, 58 Mo. 105; Ames v. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537. The judgment of the trial court is fully sustained by the evidence and right. 36 Mo. 138.

NORTON, J.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of setting aside a certain deed of mortgage executed by one Eisenberg, conveying to defendant Drum a certain threshing machine and horse-power, to secure him in the payment of certain debts therein mentioned. The mortgage was executed on the 10th day of August, 1878, and the validity of it is assailed by plaintiffs on the ground that said mortgage was without consideration, and that when it was executed defendant, Drum, had notice that said plaintiffs had a lien on said property for the purchase money, and that said machine and horse-power were sold by plaintiffs to Eisenberg with the understanding and agreement that their lien was to continue on the property till it was paid for. The petition sets up other matters, which it is not deemed necessary to notice, in order to a proper understanding of the controlling point involved in the case. The defendant, in his answer, puts in issue the averments of the petition as to said mortgage being taken without consideration, and with notice of plaintiffs's claim on the property. The court found for plaintiffs and rendered judgment accordingly, from which defendant has appealed.

It is contended by counsel for defendant that the evidence does not show a sale by plaintiffs to Eisenberg of the property in question, on the condition that the property was to remain the property of plaintiffs till it was paid for; and that if the evidence establishes that fact, there is no evidence showing that Drum had notice of it, at or before the time he took the mortgage on it.

As to the first of the above points, it must be ruled against the defendant. Mr. Mattingly, a witness on the part of plaintiffs, testified as follows: “Eisenberg came down on the boat with the machine, and had it landed at Wittenberg. I asked him upon what terms he had purchased the machine, and he told me he had executed two notes for the purchase money, one payable in August and the other in October. I also asked him if the machine and horse-power were to remain the property of Kingsland, Ferguson & Co. till the notes were paid, and he said they were.” This conversation was in July, 1878. The evidence was objected to on the ground of irrelevancy, it not being shown that Drum was present. This objection was properly overruled. It was competent for plaintiffs to show the terms of sale agreed upon, either by proving the contract by a person present when it was made, or by proving it by the admissions of Eisenberg, a party to it, such admissions having been made before the mortgage to Drum was given, and while Eisenberg was in possession of the property. 1 Greenleaf Ev., § 190. See also 21 Mo. 522 and 444; 36 Mo. 326; 24 Mo. 221. It was for plaintiffs to show, as the first necessary step to make out their case, that it was agreed between plaintiffs and Eisenberg that the property in the machine and horse-power was to remain in plaintiffs till they were paid for. This contract, however, under section 2507 of the Revised Statutes, could not affect the rights of Drum under his mortgage, unless the other evidence in the case showed that Drum had notice of it at or before the time the mortgage was taken. In the cases of Wangler v. Franklin, 70 Mo. 659, and Robbins v. Phillips, 68 Mo. 100, it was held “that when property was sold on the condition that the title was to remain in the seller until the purchase money was paid, the contract is a valid one, and will be respected and enforced by the courts even against a bona fide purchaser.” Section 2507, supra, works a radical change as to the law in this respect, in that it provides that such condition in regard to the title remaining in the seller until the purchase price is paid, “shall be void as to all subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Globe Securities Co. v. Gardner Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1935
    ... ... meaning of the above statutes. 11 C. J., pp. 517-520; ... Bell v. Barnes, 87 Mo.App. 451; Morris v ... McMahan, 75 Mo.App. 494; Kingsland v. Drumm, 80 ... Mo. 646; Oyler v. Renfro, 86 Mo.App. 321; ... Wurmser v. Sivey, 52 Mo.App. 424; Calkins v ... Howard, 2 Cal.App. 233; ... ...
  • Redenbaugh v. Kelton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1895
    ... ... v. Francisco, 65 Mo. 598; Sexton v. Anderson, ... 95 Mo. 373; Noble v. Metcalf, 20 Mo.App. 360; ... Level v. Farris, 24 Mo.App. 445; Kingsland v ... Drumm, 80 Mo. 646; Coover v. Johnson, 86 Mo ... 533; Lee v. Bowman, 55 Mo. 400; Peet v ... Spencer, 90 Mo. 384; Bender v. Merkle, 37 ... ...
  • American Clay Machinery Co. v. Sedalia Brick & Tile Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 1913
    ...purchasers having notice thereof. Section 2889, R. S. Mo. 1909; Gilbert Book Co. v. Sheridan, 114 Mo. App. 332, 89 S. W. 555; Kingsland v. Drum, 80 Mo. 646; Oyler v. Renfro, 86 Mo. App. 321, loc. cit. 325; Young v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Com. Co., 158 Mo. 395, loc. cit. 410, 59 S. W. To reach a ......
  • American Clay Machinery Company v. The Sedalia Brick & Tile Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 1913
    ... ... 492] notice thereof. [Sec. 2889, R. S ... Mo. 1909; Gilbert Book Company v. Sheridan, 114 ... Mo.App. 332, 89 S.W. 555; Kingsland" v. Drum, 80 Mo ... 646; Oyler v. Renfro, 86 Mo.App. 321, l. c. 325; ... Young v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Com. Co., 158 Mo. 395, l ...         \xC2" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT