Puckett Machinery Co. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 21 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. 90-CA-01264,90-CA-01264
• Citation: 641 So.2d 29
• Parties: PUCKETT MACHINERY COMPANY v. Russell EDWARDS.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 29

641 So.2d 29

PUCKETT MACHINERY COMPANY v. Russell EDWARDS.

No. 90-CA-01264.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 21, 1994.

Frank T. Moore, Jr., T. Calvin Wells, Wells Moore Simmons & Neeld, David M. McMullan, Jr., Stubblefield & Clark, Jackson, for appellant.

Rebecca C. Taylor, Jack Parsons, Parsons & Taylor, Wiggins, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

En Banc.

JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., Justice, for the Court:

The original opinions are withdrawn and this opinion substituted therefor.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, following a jury trial. Puckett Machinery Company sued Russell Edwards in a replevin action for the repossession of equipment Puckett sold to Edwards, which was secured by a purchase money note and security agreement. Edwards counterclaimed in this action, seeking $111,768.00, plus additional damages suffered as a result of alleged defective machinery and misrepresentations by Puckett. The jury awarded Edwards damages in the amount of $108,036.00 Puckett moved for, and was denied, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. Feeling aggrieved of this finding, Puckett appeals to this Court on the issues of replevin and damages. We reverse and remand on the same.

after deducting $41,964.00 they found was owed by Edwards to Puckett.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Mr. Russell Edwards is in the logging business. Prior to August, 1986, Edwards used a ten year-old John Deere, Model 544 B Loader for cutting trees. He decided to buy new tree-cutting equipment, and approached Mr. Gwenzil Dossett, a salesman for Puckett Machinery Company, about purchasing a Caterpillar tree-harvester. Edwards testified that he was fond of his other Caterpillar equipment, and wanted all his equipment to be the same.

Edwards decided to purchase a Caterpillar 910 from Puckett. He put $5,000.00 down, and was given a $12,000.00 trade-in allowance for his John Deere. ¹ The sales price for the 910 was $73,320.00, but the total purchase price was $92,138.00, including all features and insurance. The 910 carried a three year or 5,000 hour warranty, whichever occurred first. The 910 was delivered to Edwards at his work site in Roberts, Louisiana. There is undisputed testimony that the 910 did not work properly from the time it was delivered to Edwards. Puckett sent mechanics down to the site to work on the 910. The 910 never operated properly, and was eventually picked up by Puckett. Other than the original down payment and the trade-in allowance, Edwards did not pay anything further on the note on the 910. In fact, a credit memorandum was issued to Edwards on the 910.

After several weeks of attempting to use the 910, a decision was reached by Edwards to purchase another model Caterpillar, the 518 tree-harvester. There is disputed testimony as to what transpired regarding the decision for Edwards to buy the 518. Edwards testified that he felt he had no choice in purchasing another model Caterpillar since Puckett had retained his down payment. However, Mr. Myron Sitton, the executive vice-president and secretary of Puckett Machinery Company, stated that Puckett was not unwilling to give Edwards his down payment back; and in fact, there was no evidence that Edwards ever asked for his money back. It should also be noted that during the pendency of Edwards' decision to purchase the 518, he also looked at similar John Deere equipment.

The original $5,000.00 down payment was applied to the purchase of the 518. The trade-in allowance on the John Deere was raised from $12,000.00 to $29,000.00. Sitton testified that this increase was made because Puckett knew that Edwards was unhappy about the 910 and they wanted to try and make it up to him.

There were a few operational problems with the 518 as well. Edwards testified that the 518 never cut trees as large as he was told that it would. Furthermore, Edwards had trouble with the hydraulic system, and had to have a cylinder rebuilt within the first year of owning the 518. The 518 carried the same warranty as the 910. Edwards testified that the 518 was a fine machine, and he continued to use it right up until the time of trial. Moreover, he planned to continue to use it after the trial.

On or about January 9, 1989, Puckett refinanced the note on Edwards' 518. Edwards had fallen behind in his payments, and this was an attempt to bring his account current. Edwards testified that he had fallen behind on the payments because it had been raining and he was unable to work as a result. He further testified that he had gone into Puckett to "set three notes up." He stated that he did not want to refinance the whole note, but he said he signed the paperwork doing so anyway. ²

As a result of the refinancing, the monthly payments were lowered from $3900.00 to $3500.00. Id. According to the terms of the refinanced note, there were to be eighteen (18) payments at $3497.00 per month. Sitton testified that the last payment received was the one due on July 10, 1990. It was received on September 26, 1990, but was returned for insufficient funds. It was later made good. Sitton stated that Edwards was twelve (12) payments in arrears, totalling $41,964.00.

There was further disputed testimony as to what transpired at the time the note was refinanced. Edwards testified that he told the people at Puckett that the 518 was not working properly, and that Mr. Delk, the branch manager at the Hattiesburg store, said he would "fix" it. Edwards stated that no one came to his work site to fix the equipment. Sitton testified that he was unaware of any promise made to Edwards to go out to the work site and look at the 518. Furthermore, Delk testified that he recalled Edwards complaining about the 518, but that he did not promise he would go out to the site and look at the 518; and in fact, he did not go.

Edwards stated that he got behind on his payments again after refinancing the note due to rain, but decided at that time he was not going to pay anymore on the 518. He said he was tired of the equipment not working properly. However, he did not notify Puckett of this decision, nor his reasons for discontinuing payment. Puckett, and later its attorneys, sent letters to Edwards, and Edwards acknowledged receipt of these letters regarding his past due payments, but did nothing about them. Edwards continued to use the 518. It was only when the replevin action was brought against him that he took the whole matter to his attorneys.

As stated, Puckett wrote Edwards several letters regarding his past due account. After Edwards failed to bring his account current, Puckett filed a complaint seeking repossession of the Caterpillar 518 tree-harvester on October 18, 1989, pursuant to the January 9, 1989, purchase money note and security agreement signed by Edwards and properly executed by Puckett. Edwards answered and filed a counterclaim on November 14, 1989, claiming breach of warranty and seeking costs of repairs, $111,768.00, plus additional damages.

A jury trial was held July 19-21, 1990. The jury returned a verdict for Edwards. The jury verdict read: "[w]e, the jury, find for Russell Edwards against Puckett Machinery Company and assess his damages at $108,036.00, after deducting the sum of $41,964.00 owed by Russell Edwards to Puckett Machinery on the machine."

Puckett filed a motion for (partial) judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in the alternative, for a new trial. ³ These motions were denied by the lower court. Puckett perfected its appeal to this Court.

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

I.

Puckett contends that the trial court erred by not granting its Motion for (Partial) Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and in the alternative, its Motion for a New Trial. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a procedural device for challenging the sufficiency of the case, and requires that the lower court consider all the evidence before it at the time the motion is made. First United Bank of Poplarville v. Reid, 612 So.2d 1131, 1136 (Miss.1992) (citing Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss.1985)). The sufficiency of the evidence presented by Edwards must be considered on the basis of all the evidence offered and the lower court's ruling tested under its denial of Puckett's judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion.

                See Reid, 612 So.2d at 1136.   That is, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to Edwards, the nonmoving party.  See North River Homes, Inc. v. Bosarge, 594 So.2d 1153, 1159 (Miss.1992)
                

Our scope of review is well-established:

The motion for J.N.O.V. tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. It asks the court to hold, as a matter of law, that the verdict may not stand. Where a motion for J.N.O.V. has been made, the trial court--and this Court on appeal--must consider all the evidence--not just the evidence which supports the non-movants case--in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. The non-movant must also be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, granting the motion is required. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied and the jury's verdict allowed to stand.

Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Miss.1992) (citing Andrew Jackson Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, 566 So.2d 1172, 1177 (Miss.1990); Goodwin v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40, 42 (Miss.1989); Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss.1988); Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1984); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, ...