People's Bank v. Frick Co.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1903 |
| Citation | 73 P. 949,13 Okla. 179,1903 OK 91 |
| Parties | PEOPLE'S BANK OF PRATT, KAN., v. FRICK CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Error from District Court, Garfield County; before Justice John L McAtee.
Action by the Frick Company against the People's Bank of Pratt Kan., and J. P. Jones. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant bank brings error. Affirmed.
In the year 1897, the Frick Company, a corporation, was the owner of a Frick traction engine, No. 5,447, in the possession of Isaac Shockey, at Abilene, Kan. The Frick Company were manufacturers of and wholesale dealers in engines, threshers and mill machinery at Waynesboro, Pa. Shockey was a retail dealer in agricultural implements and mill machinery at Abilene, Kan., and was the duly appointed agent of the Frick Company. The appointment was in writing, and authorized Shockey to sell the Frick Company's goods on commission for cash or on credit, and required that in all cases of sales on credit. Shockey should cause the purchaser to execute notes payable to the Frick Company, and have same secured by chattel mortgage upon the machinery sold. Shockey had no authority to appoint subagents for the Frick Company or to employ any persons for them or at their expense. The engine in question had been sold in 1893 by Shockey for the Frick Company, and, on account of the purchaser failing to pay purchase money, the engine was taken back by the Frick Company, and was in the possession of Shockey for resale. On June 25, 1897, one D. W. Blaine, who resided at Pratt, Kan and was a dealer in machinery, was in Garfield county, Okl., and procured an order from one Edward Sutphen for the engine in question at the price of $900, to be paid in installments. Blaine was acquainted with Shockey, and had first made inquiry of him as to whether he could supply such an engine, and at what price. On receiving Shockey's answer, he procured the order from Sutphen, and presented same to Shockey. Shockey accepted the order as agent for the Frick Company, and shipped the engine to Sutphen at Enid, Okl., where it was received by Sutphen, and, with the assistance of Blaine, was started in operation. The price made by Shockey was $800; the price at which Blaine made the sale to Sutphen was $900. The order called for a 12 horse power engine. The one in question proved to be only a 10 horse power engine. A few days after the engine was received by Sutphen, Shockey went to Garfield county, and called on him for a settlement, but, owing to the engine needing some repairs, Sutphen then refused to settle for same until the repairs were made. Shockey and Blaine had some agreement about a commission to be paid to Blaine by Shockey for sale of the engine. Shockey returned to his home in Abilene, procured the repairs to be made on the engine, and sent the note and mortgage ready filled out to Blaine, to have executed by Sutphen. Blaine took the notes to Sutphen, and procured him and his wife to execute the notes and a chattel mortgage on the engine securing them; also a real estate mortgage for additional security. These notes and mortgages were executed July 10 and dated June 29, 1897. The notes were payable as follows: $200 to Shockey, $200 to the Frick Company, $100 to the Frick Company, $100 to Blaine, and two notes of $150 each to the Frick Company. Blaine held these notes for some days, and, failing to make satisfactory settlement of his commission with Shockey, he returned them to Sutphen, and they, in the presence of each other, destroyed all the notes and mortgages, and about the 1st of August, 1897, Blaine procured Sutphen and wife to execute a second series of notes for a total sum of $900, all payable to D. W. Blaine, and said notes were secured by a chattel mortgage upon the engine and by a real estate mortgage. These mortgages were recorded in Garfield county August 5, 1897. At the time of this transaction Blaine surrendered and marked canceled one note for the sum of $100, which was in part for rebate on the engine, because it was a 10 and not a 12 horse power, and in part to induce Sutphen to execute the new notes. At this time the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of both Blaine and Sutphen were sufficient to bring them notice that the engine was the property of the Frick Company. Immediately after this second series of notes were executed, Blaine took them, and went to Waynesboro, Pa., and called upon the Frick Company, and attempted to effect a settlement with them. He offered to assign the company the notes and mortgage executed by Sutphen, provided the company would guaranty payment of certain demands he claimed against the agent, Shockey. The manager of the company informed him that Shockey had notified it of the sale, and had stated that he (Blaine) was entitled to $50 for making the sale. The company offered to pay him the $50 for Shockey, if he would turn over the Sutphen notes and mortgages. He refused to do this, and returned home. Some correspondence then ensued, and the Frick Company declined to recognize the authority of Blaine in the transaction and demanded a settlement direct with Sutphen, and on September 16, 1897, Sutphen and wife executed to the Frick Company two notes for $150 each, two for $165 each, and one for $170, and secured the same by a chattel mortgage on the engine and also on certain real estate. These mortgages were recorded at once in Garfield county, Okl., where the property was situate. After all this had occurred, and with Blaine's full knowledge, he, on January 7, 1898, assigned and delivered the notes executed to him in August by Sutphen to the People's Bank of Pratt, Kan., the defendant in the court below, and plaintiff in error here. There were sufficient facts brought to notice of this bank to put it on inquiry as to the ownership of these notes. Blaine was indebted to the bank at that time over $1,400, and these notes were turned over to the bank and he received credit on his account for the amount. Sutphen failed to pay any of the notes given for the engine, and left the country. The Frick Company then brought an action of replevin for the engine, basing its right to possession upon the mortgage executed by Sutphen for the purchase money on September 16, 1897. The People's Bank of Pratt, Kan., was made defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial