Motors Securities Co., Inc. v. Duck

• Decision Date: 26 June 1939
• Docket Number: 4-5529
• Citation: 130 S.W.2d 3,198 Ark. 647
• Parties: MOTORS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC. v. DUCK
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

130 S.W.2d 3

198 Ark. 647

MOTORS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC. v. DUCK

4-5529

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 26, 1939

Appeal from Union Circuit Court, Second Division; Gus W. Jones Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. V Spencer and Sam Goodkin, for appellant.

Surrey E. Gilliam, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is a replevin suit brought in the circuit court of Union county by appellant against appellee to recover the possession of a Ford automobile under the provisions of a conditional sales contract for failure of appellee to pay the balance of the purchase money therefor evidenced by note with agreement to pay same in monthly installments. The conditional sales contract and note were made exhibits to the complaint. Appellant alleged the right to possession of the automobile by reason of an assignment of the note and conditional sales contract to it by the Ramsey Motor Co., Inc., who sold the automobile to appellee for a valuable consideration before maturity. The sales contract contained a provision that Ramsey Motor Co., Inc., or its assignee might retake the automobile in case appellee failed to pay the monthly installments as they became due.

Appellee filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and pleading further that the contract was made in Louisiana and was void ab initio in that state. The cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury upon a stipulation as follows:

"That the conditional sales agreement attached as Exhibit to the original complaint, and which is made a part of this stipulation, was made, signed, executed and delivered in Farmerville, Louisiana, in Union Parish, and that the car involved therein was delivered to the purchaser, Horace Clyde Duck, in Farmerville, Louisiana. That a note was executed at the same time as a part of the purchase price, and that it likewise, was signed by Horace Clyde Duck in Farmerville, Louisiana.

"That both said contract and note were executed on August 29, 1937, but bear date of August 30, 1937.

"That the plaintiff is in arrears on his payments provided for, and that under the terms of the contract the total amount thereunder, in the sum of $ 448.49, is the accrued amount due under said contract and note, provided it is found that the instruments are valid, and that any amount is due thereunder.

"That immediately after the execution of said contract and note the Ramsey Motor Company, Inc., sold the note and contract to the Motors Securities Company, Inc., for a valuable consideration; that said sale of the note and contract were made to the Motors Securities Company, Inc., before any payments under the contract and note became due.

"That after the assignment to the Motors Securities Company, Inc., the defendant made payments, the last payment being made to the Motors Securities Company, Inc., on the 12th day of September, 1938, and under the note and contract there is now due a balance of $ 448.49, should the court find that the contract and note are valid, together with six per cent interest on and after September 12, 1938.

"It is further stipulated that the car is of the value of $ 500.

"It is further stipulated that neither the Motors Securities Company, Inc., nor the Ramsey Motor Company, Inc., have been authorized to do or transact business in the state of Arkansas; and it is further admitted that both of them are corporations which were not organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas.

"It is further stipulated that the note and contract provide that fifteen per cent. attorney's fee be added should the note be placed in the hands of an attorney for collection.

"It is further stipulated that said note and contract are made a part of this agreed stipulation of facts as Exhibit 'A' to plaintiff's testimony.

"It is further stipulated that Horace Clyde Duck is a resident of the state of Arkansas, and was such during all of the times mentioned."

The court found that the conditional sales agreement was made in Louisiana, and since under the laws of Louisiana, a conditional sales agreement has no effect as such, the appellant could not maintain its action of replevin and dismissed the complaint over the objection and exception of appellant.

A motion for a new trial was filed assigning as ground therefor that the court erred in holding that the contract should be governed by the laws of Louisiana. The motion was overruled whereupon appellant prayed and was granted an appeal to this court.

Appellant's first contention for a reversal of the judgment is that, even though the conditional sales contract was a. Louisiana contract, it was valid in that state and, therefore, valid and enforceable in any other state. The first question...