Pacific Finance Corporation of California v. Burkhart, Civil 4206
Decision Date | 16 December 1940 |
Docket Number | Civil 4206 |
Citation | 108 P.2d 380,56 Ariz. 383 |
Parties | PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Corporation, Appellant, v. H. E. BURKHART, Doing Business Under the Trade Name and Style of BURKHART MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Henry C. Kelley, Judge. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part with instructions.
Mr Allan K. Perry and Mr. William H. Westover, for Appellant.
Mr. Ray C. Bennett, for Appellee.
Pacific Finance Corporation of California, a corporation, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against H. E Burkhart, doing business under the trade name and style of Burkhart Motor Company, hereinafter called defendant, on fifteen causes of action. Defendant demurred to the complaint and to each separate cause of action on the ground that none of them stated a cause of action against defendant, and answered and cross-complained alleging that plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $1,166.59. The trial court sustained the demurrer to causes of action one to thirteen inclusive, and overruled the demurrer to the fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action, and plaintiff electing to stand upon each cause as pleaded, the first thirteen were dismissed.
The case went on to trial on the fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action, and defendant's cross-complaint. The court found in favor of plaintiff on the fourteenth cause of action in the sum of $345.12, and in favor of defendant on his cross-complaint in the sum of $1,166.59, and that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees as asked in its fifteenth cause of action, whereupon judgment was entered in favor of defendant in the sum of $1,166.59, less $345.12, being the amount established by plaintiff under its fourteenth cause of action, and plaintiff appealed from the judgment, with the exception of that portion in favor of it on its fourteenth cause of action.
There are but two assignments of error, the second of which is dependent upon whether the court was correct in its ruling sustaining the demurrers to the first thirteen causes of action, with the exception of the eighth, which plaintiff apparently admits were correctly determined. It is, therefore, necessary that we consider the allegations of the complaint.
We will summarize in a factual manner the allegations of the first cause of action only, as all of those to which demurrers were sustained are identical, with certain exceptions which we shall point out as necessary. Plaintiff is a California corporation, while defendant was a resident of Yuma and engaged in business as a dealer in motor vehicles. On September 14, 1936, he sold to one W. L. Hubbell a Dodge automobile under a contract of conditional sale, to be paid for in installments. This conditional sale agreement was in the usual form, and we shall refer to any particular provision thereof as may be necessary without setting forth the instrument in full. On the same day defendant assigned the contract of sale and all rights thereunder to plaintiff by a written instrument which reads, so far as material to this case, as follows:
The purchaser made several payments on his contract, but eventually defaulted thereon, and plaintiff repossessed the motor vehicle described in the conditional sales contract, and delivered it to defendant, but defendant did not pay to plaintiff the balance due from the purchaser under the conditional sales contract, nor did he repurchase said vehicle from plaintiff. He did, however, send it the following:
In pursuance of that letter, plaintiff received the automobile from defendant and sold it at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, and applied the receipts from the sale on what was still due on the conditional contract. After such application there was a balance left of $128.85, for which plaintiff brought suit.
It will be seen that this is a case of an ordinary conditional sale by an automobile dealer and an assignment of the contract of sale to a third party by a written agreement. It is necessary that we examine the agreement to see just exactly what liability defendant assumed when he assigned the contract of sale, for it is upon this agreement and its construction that the question of whether the demurrers were properly sustained turns. The first part of the agreement is an ordinary assignment of the money due from the purchaser to the seller and of the seller's reserved title in the instrument together with a warranty of the title against all persons except the purchaser in the contract. Then follows what the defendant agrees to do in case the purchaser does not complete the payments in accordance with the contract. This agreement may be summarized as follows: (a) If the plaintiff takes possession of the automobile for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maestro Music, Inc. v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.
...into that of the buyer and entitle him to the benefit conferred by the Act upon the buyer. Our decision in Pacific Finance Corp. of California v. Burkhart, 56 Ariz. 383, 108 P.2d 380, is authority for the proposition that the seller-assignor is not the 'buyer' within the meaning of the Unif......
-
Giovanelli v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Phoenix, 1
...and not by the label of the agreement alone. Kinter v. Wolfe, 102 Ariz. 164, 426 P.2d 798 (1967); Pacific Finance Corp. of California v. Burkhart, 56 Ariz. 383, 108 P.2d 380 (1940). Appellants claim payment and appellee argues that there has been only partial payment. A question of payment ......
-
Kintner v. Wolfe
...is determined by what is within the four corners thereof, and not by the name given to it.' Pacific Finance Corp. of California v. Burkhart, 56 Ariz. 383, 391, 108 P.2d 380, 383. 'Nor is the fact that a promise is called by the parties a guaranty, conclusive evidence that the promise is not......
-
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Lawley
...Lawley liable on his agreement. Lawley counters by saying that he was a guarantor for Facey, but cf. Pacific Finance Corporation v. Burkhart, 56 Ariz. 383, 108 P.2d 380, 383 (Sup.Ct.1940), and that he was discharged of liability since plaintiff had, by effecting a sale without proper notice......