People's Elec. Ry. Co. v. McKeen Motor Car Co.

• Citation: 214 F. 73
• Decision Date: 10 April 1914
• Docket Number: 4012.
• Parties: PEOPLE'S ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al. v. McKEEN MOTOR CAR CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

214 F. 73

PEOPLE'S ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al. v. McKEEN MOTOR CAR CO.

No. 4012.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 10, 1914

Arthur G. Moseley, of St. Louis, Mo. (C. N. Haskell, of Muskogee Okl., and G. W. Risser, of Ottawa, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

R. W Blair, of Topeka, Kan. (B. W. Scandrett, of Omaha, Neb., and C. A. Magaw and T. M. Lillard, both of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and POPE, District Judge.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

In an action in replevin by the seller of a chattel under a contract of conditional sale by which he reserved title and the right to possession if the purchase price was not fully paid, the purchaser who had not paid in full set up in defense a breach of implied warranty, a rescission of the contract of sale, and a claim of equitable lien on the chattel or right to retain it until reimbursed for his partial payment and some expenses.

Judgment for the seller was entered on the pleadings.

In cases of enforcement of contracts of conditional sale circumstances not infrequently appear which make the result seem inequitable, but as was said in Bierce v Hutchins, 205 U.S. 340, 347, 27 Sup.Ct. 524, 525 (51 L.Ed. 828):

'Such sales sometimes are regulated by statute and put more or less on the footing of mortgages. With the development of its effects there has been some reaction against the Benthamite doctrine of absolute freedom of contract. But courts are not Legislatures, and are not at liberty to invent and apply specific regulations according to their notions of convenience. In the absence of a statute, their only duty is to discover the meaning of the contract and to enforce it, without a leaning in either direction, when, as in the present case, the parties stood on an equal footing and were free to do what they chose.'

Liens may be created by statute or by contract or may arise from the usages of trade or commerce. They are rights of property and not mere matters of procedure (The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 579, 22 L.Ed. 654), and therefore they cannot be created here and there by the courts merely from a sense of justice in particular cases.

A lien in the purchaser is not consistent with the terms of the contract before us. The parties agreed that the seller should remain the owner and should have the right to retake possession upon conditions definitely...