Percifield v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1927 |
| Citation | 111 So. 519,93 Fla. 247 |
| Parties | PERCIFIELD v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; A. G Hartridge, Judge.
I. O Percifield was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Under contract retaining title in seller, buyer does not become absolute owner until payment; on default in payment, seller in pursuance of title retaining contract, may repossess and sell property and apply proceeds to obligation; seller under contract permitting repossessing property without legal process on failure to pay may repossess it without legal process if possible, without unlawful trespass or breach of peace. We now hold that a purchaser, having failed to discharge the indebtedness as evidenced by written notes or written contract, including a stipulation that the title to the property, the payment for which such note or contract is given, shall remain in the vendor until such note or contract is paid, never acquires title to or becomes the absolute owner of the property in question until such obligation has been discharged, and when default has occurred in the payment of such obligation, the vendor has the legal right to take possession of the property, sell the same, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the obligation, and, if the note or contract contains the provision that the vendor under such conditions may repossess the property without process of law then the vendor may repossess such property without resorting to legal process, if he can do so without committing a breach of the peace or committing an unlawful trespass.
Seller retaking chattel from conditional buyer for default in payment, in pursuance of contract, is not guilty of larceny. When a vendor who is the general owner of a chattel retakes the same from a conditional vendee thereof pursuant to the terms of the contract between the parties that in the event of a default in the payment of the purchase price the vendor 'has the right to take possession of said (chattel) without any process of law,' the act of such vendor is not larceny.
Joseph S. White, of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for thE state.
In this case the appellant was informed against in the criminal court of record of Palm Beach county, Fla., charged with the offense of larceny of an automobile alleged to have been the property of one Mary C. Bevers. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and costs, or, in default thereof, to serve a period of twelve months in the county jail.
The probative force of the evidence shows that the plaintiff in error was an automobile dealer in Lake Worth, Fla.; that on the 29th day of April, 1925, he made a conditional sale of the automobile in question to one L. O. Cowdery; that Cowdery, in part payment for the automobile, gave a note containing the following provision, to wit, 'I further agree that the right, title to, and ownership of one Velie Royal sedan, motor No. V831636, the property for which this note is given, including all parts, tires, or accessories now or subsequently placed thereon by the undersigned, shall remain vested in Percifield Auto Company, or bearer, till this note is paid, and if not paid at maturity, the holder of this note has the right to take possession of said automobile without any process of law'; that Mary C. Bevers, the mother of Cowdery, made a trade with Cowdery by which she agreed to pay for the car and take the title; that she was cognizant of the condition of the title. The evidence shows that she never had possession of the automobile; that demand was made by the vendor upon Cowdery for payment of the note that the plaintiff in error, after having made demand on Cowdery, and after having received information that Cowdery was disposing of his property and about to leave Palm Beach county and that a 'For Sale' sign was exhibited on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Midland Bank-Central v. Cote
...of taking possession of the thing and removing it from the land. Our Supreme Court recognized this privilege in Percifield v. State, 93 Fla. 247, 111 So. 519 (1927). See also Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238 (1911). Cf. McDowell v. James Talcott, Inc., 183 So.2d 592 (Fla.3d ......
-
Northside Motors of Florida, Inc. v. Brinkley
...regulate them. McGriff v. Porter, 5 Fla. 373 (1853), Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, et al., 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238 (1911), Percifield v. State, 93 Fla. 247, 111 So. 519 (1927), and C.I.T. Corporation v. Reeves, 112 Fla. 424, 150 So. 638 (1933). In Percifield, supra, 111 So. at 520, this Court '.......
-
Addison v. State
...own goods from one who has a special property right in them and a legal right to withhold them from him. 36 C.J. 756, 781; Percifield v. State (Fla.) 111 So. 519; v. State (Fla.) 109 So. 463. But as a general rule, one could hardly steal his own goods, though he might be guilty of a trespas......
-
Ex Parte Browne
... ... October 21, 1923. A judgment of conviction of murder in the ... first degree was reversed. Browne v. State, 88 Fla ... 457, 102 So. [93 Fla. 333] 546. A second conviction of murder ... in the first degree was affirmed. Browne v. State, ... 92 Fla. 699, ... ...