Murray Co. v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9369. |
| Citation | 174 P. 1091,73 Okla. 106,1918 OK 428 |
| Parties | MURRAY CO. v. CHICKASHA COTTON OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1918.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where ginning machinery is sold under agreement between the vendor and vendee that the vendee give notes in payment thereof secured by chattel mortgage on said machinery, and that said machinery shall not be annexed to or become a part of any realty until the purchase price is fully paid, and the notes and mortgage are executed and delivered, and the vendee places the machinery in a cotton gin on the premises, which is covered by a real estate mortgage, and the evidence shows that the machinery may be removed from the premises without injury to the same, the holder of the chattel mortgage does not lose his lien on the machinery as security for the payment of the purchase price.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
Action by the Murray Company against the Chickasha Cotton Oil Company and others to foreclose a chattel mortgage. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, with directions.
V. R Biggers and A. M. Fowler, both of Wewoka, and Barefoot & Carmichael, of Chickasha, for plaintiff in error.
On the 6th day of June, 1913, H. W. Branum gave a real estate mortgage to the Chickasha Cotton Oil Company on certain property upon which was located a cotton gin, to secure the payment of two promissory notes. The Chickasha Cotton Oil Company brought an action to foreclose the mortgage.
Subsequent to the execution of said real estate mortgage, on about the 20th day of August, 1913, the said Branum purchased from the Murray Company certain ginning machinery and placed the same on the premises in the ginhouse covered by the real estate mortgage. Branum gave his notes in payment and a chattel mortgage on the machinery to secure the payment of said notes. The Murray Company asks for a foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on said machinery.
The purchase contract between Branum and the Murray Company provided that said machinery should not be annexed or become a part of any realty until the same had been fully paid for. The trial court held that the machinery covered by the chattel mortgage of the Murray Company had become attached to the real property and become a part thereof, and that the company had lost its lien thereon, and denied the said Murray Company the right to a foreclosure of its chattel mortgage.
The evidence in this case as to the nature of the annexation of the machinery to the realty and as to the effect of its removal from the realty shows conclusively that the machinery can be removed without injury to the said real property. The legal question presented here for determination is: Where a mortgaged chattel is attached to mortgaged real property, and the same can be removed without injury to the realty, has the holder of the chattel mortgage lost his right to his interest in the chattel to the mortgagee of the real estate mortgage?
On this question there is some conflict of authority; but the weight of authority, which seems to be founded on sound principles of justice, sustains the rule that where a mortgaged chattel is attached to mortgaged realty, and the same can be removed without injury to...
To continue reading
Request your trial