Redd Distributing Co. v. Bruckner

• Decision Date: 10 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 140-69,140-69
• Citation: 128 Vt. 635,270 A.2d 580
• Parties: REDD DISTRIBUTING CO., Inc. v. Donald H. BRUCKNER.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 580

270 A.2d 580

128 Vt. 635

REDD DISTRIBUTING CO., Inc. v. Donald H. BRUCKNER.

No. 140-69.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Sept. 10, 1970.

Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for plaintiff.

French & Miller, Rutland, for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

SMITH, Justice.

The is an action in trover. The plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, not licensed to do business in the State of Vermont, but engaged in interstate commerce, complains that the defendant unlawfully converted to his own use one Wurlitzer 2910 model phonograph and one remote volume control, owned by the plaintiff, and has wrongfully detained the same from the plaintiff. Trial was held by court, in the Rutland County Court on September 10, 1969; findings of fact were made by the court and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, together with his taxable costs. The plaintiff has duly brought his appeal here.

The phonograph, perhaps more popularly known as a 'juke box', was owned by the plaintiff Massachusetts corporation. On March 8, 1966, the defendant restaurant owner, of Wallingford, Vermont, purchased the phonograph from the plaintiff, agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $1395.00. On the above date, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a so-called Conditional Sales Note. This note was for the principal sum of $1,344.00, consisting of $1,200 balance of purchase price, plus a service charge of $144.00. Said note was payable in monthly installments of $56.00 for 24 consecutive months. The defendant made the monthly installment payments required by the Conditional Sales Note from the months of April, May, June, July, August and September, 1966, totalling $336.00, and at the time of purchase of the machine the defendant paid the plaintiff $195.00.

After about two weeks of operation, the machine, which was a second hand one, began to malfunction. Defendant notified the plaintiff in Massachusetts of such condition, and a Mr. Sleeman, of Burlington, Vermont, who had delivered the machine, attempted to repair it, but without success. Plaintiff paid Sleeman for servicing the machine.

After the plaintiff had accepted the conditional sales contract in Massachusetts is assigned the note signed by the defendant to the Congress Financial Corporation, but such note was subsequently reassigned to the plaintiff.

After the payment of September 15 installment, the defendant, because of the failure of the machine to operate, ceased to make any further payments to the plaintiff on the Conditional Sales Contract.

In March, 1967, the payments on the machine being in default, the plaintiff placed the note in the hands of a deputy sheriff, with instructions to repossess the machine. Upon demanding the machine at the place of business of the defendant, the sheriff was refused taking of the machine by the wife of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, himself, being absent at the time. In the hearing below, the defendant testified that he would not allow the officer to repossess the machine in any event, and the lower court found that any further demand by the sheriff would have been futile.

The factual situation above stated is a summary of the findings of fact made by the court below to which no exceptions were taken by the defendant.

It is the contention of the plaintiff in this Court that the findings of fact made below do not support the judgment in favor of the defendant. The defendant seeks to sustain the judgment on the ground that the conditional sales contract was an unenforceable contract by virtue of 11 V.S.A. Sec. 764.

'A foreign corporation shall not maintain an action in this state upon a contract made by it in this state if, at the time of making such contract, it was doing business in this state without lawful authoirty * * *.'

Defendant cites in support of its assertion A & W Artesian Well Co. v. Tornabene et al., 124 Vt. 413, at p. 416, 207 A.2d 140, at p. 142:

If such foreign corporation chooses to do business in this state without affording the protection to both the State, as well as to those with whom it contracts, as it is required to do by the statute, by the same choice it has foregone the enforcement of its contractual rights in the Vermont court.'

But A & W Artesian Well Co. v. Tornabene, supra, p. 417, 207 A.2d p. 142, also states:

'Our statute prevents the enforcement of the contract, but does not declare the contract void.'

The breach of the conditional sales agreement by the defendant constituted an effective transfer of title to the plaintiff. And the courts of this state will protect that security interest for it does not come with the prohibition of 11 VSA Sec. 764. Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co., 86 Vt. 76, 86, 82 A. 807. The findings of fact fail to bring the plaintiff's business activity in Vermont within the statute as construed in A & W Artesian Well Co. v. Tornabene, supra.

The undisputed findings of fact in the case state that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce. There is no finding but that this contract with the defendant, which was accepted by the plaintiff in Massachusetts, was an isolated commercial transaction in Vermont, merely incidental to the interstate element of the business of the plaintiff. Under the doctrine as laid down in Kinnear & Gager Mfg. Co. v. Miner, 8. Vt. 572,96 A. 333, the transaction was beyond the reach of 11 VSA Sec. 764. We further note that this cause now before us is in tort, for the conversion of a chattel, title to...