Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, No. 4-9111

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtLEFLAR
Citation216 Ark. 848,227 S.W.2d 944
PartiesPRUITT TRUCK & IMPLEMENT CO. v. FERGUSON et al.
Decision Date13 March 1950
Docket NumberNo. 4-9111

Page 944

227 S.W.2d 944
216 Ark. 848
PRUITT TRUCK & IMPLEMENT CO.
v.
FERGUSON et al.
No. 4-9111.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
March 13, 1950.

Page 945

Robert L. Hyder, West Plains, Missouri, Northcutt & Northcutt, Salem, for appellant.

Robert N. Maxey, Mammoth Springs, P. C. Goodwin, Salem, for appellees.

LEFLAR, Justice.

This is a replevin action to recover a truck to which plaintiff Pruitt claims title. The Circuit Court, sitting without a jury, held for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff, an auto dealer in West Plains, Mo., there on July 17, 1948, traded the truck to W. L. Craft. In part payment Craft transferred to plaintiff another truck, and gave plaintiff a note and check for the $200 balance. The check could not be cashed and the note was never satisfied, so that the $200 balance still remains unpaid. Plaintiff did not assign to Craft the certificate of title which under Missouri law, Mo.Rev.Stats. 1939, § 8382, Mo.R.S.A., must be assigned by the seller to the buyer of a motor [216 Ark. 849] vehicle as a condition to effective sale thereof. Plaintiff Pruitt's testimony was that by their agreement the certificate of title was not to be executed until Craft finished paying for the truck, that he was to retain title till paid in full. Craft brought the truck to Arkansas, apparently secured an Arkansas license for it, and used it here for some months. During this time he incurred bills which remained unpaid, and his creditors brought a Justice of the Peace court attachment proceeding against Craft for the amount of their claims. Defendant Ferguson as Constable attached the truck and later sold it under the attachment; defendant Wadley purchased it at the attachment sale; and defendant Roberts stored it on Wadley's behalf thereafter. Plaintiff Pruitt filed this replevin suit prior to the attachment sale, and defendants had notice of his claim before the sale, though he filed an amended complaint after the sale naming Wadley and Roberts as additional defendants.

The judgment of the Circuit Court in the present action was to the effect that plaintiff had no Missouri title which could prevail over the Arkansas attachment and the sale thereunder.

The question of what title interests in the truck existed by reason of the Missouri trade between plaintiff and Craft is governed by the law of Missouri, the place where the chattel was physically located when the transaction occurred. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 258, 260; Wray Bros. v. H. A. White Auto Co., 155 Ark. 153, 244 S.W. 18. By the same token,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Campbell's Estate, In re, No. 4159
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • May 31, 1963
    ...Cf., Restatement, Conflicts, § 260; Dobbins v. Martin Buick Co., 216 Ark. 861, 227 S.W.2d 620; Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944. Hence, at this stage, the determinative point was the effect of the 1909 dismissal judgment filed in the California However,......
  • Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Johnson, Civ. No. 400.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • October 11, 1952
    ...took place there, the rights of the respective parties must be determined by Texas law. Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944; Dobbins v. Martin Buick Co., 216 Ark. 861, 227 S.W.2d Taking up first the claims of the plaintiff based upon the first mortgages on......
  • Chetopa State Bank v. Manes, No. 4-9946
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 16, 1953
    ...of the chattel mortgage. 4 Another case in which law loci contractus was applied is that of Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944, 945. We there said: 'The Arkansas law of Conflict of Laws necessarily recognizes the validity of foreigh-created titles in chat......
  • Lurie v. Blackwell, No. 01-212.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 18, 2002
    ...into which the chattel is taken." 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws §§ 55, 56 (1998). See, e.g., Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944, 945 [¶ 9] Although we need not expressly adopt the applicable Restatement sections, we note that this approach appears to be c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Campbell's Estate, In re, No. 4159
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • May 31, 1963
    ...Cf., Restatement, Conflicts, § 260; Dobbins v. Martin Buick Co., 216 Ark. 861, 227 S.W.2d 620; Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944. Hence, at this stage, the determinative point was the effect of the 1909 dismissal judgment filed in the California However,......
  • Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Johnson, Civ. No. 400.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • October 11, 1952
    ...took place there, the rights of the respective parties must be determined by Texas law. Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944; Dobbins v. Martin Buick Co., 216 Ark. 861, 227 S.W.2d 620.s end...
  • Chetopa State Bank v. Manes, No. 4-9946
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 16, 1953
    ...of the chattel mortgage. 4 Another case in which law loci contractus was applied is that of Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944, 945. We there said: 'The Arkansas law of Conflict of Laws necessarily recognizes the validity of foreigh-created titles in chat......
  • Lurie v. Blackwell, No. 01-212.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 18, 2002
    ...into which the chattel is taken." 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws §§ 55, 56 (1998). See, e.g., Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944, 945 [¶ 9] Although we need not expressly adopt the applicable Restatement sections, we note that this approach appears to be c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT