Renfroe v. Hall

• Decision Date: 13 March 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 1315.)
• Parties: RENFROE v. HALL.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 218

RENFROE v. HALL.

(No. 1315.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 13, 1918.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1918.

Appeal from Taylor County Court; Hon. E. M. Overshiner, Judge.

Action by E. E. Hall against George Renfroe and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. D. Wilson, of Spur, for appellant. Scarborough & Davidson, of Abilene, for appellee.

HUFF, C. J.

Hall, the appellee, sued Stiffler and George Renfroe, and alleged that he consigned to Stiffler a certain piano under a written contract, hereafter set out, the title to which remained in plaintiff; that Stiffler, prior to the contract of consignment, contracted with Renfroe to sell him a piano; Renfroe had paid Stiffler the consideration, and Stiffler then went to Abilene, made the contract with plaintiff, and obtained the piano, and afterwards delivered it on his (Renfroe's) debt; that Renfroe did not buy the piano, but held it as a pledge until Stiffler produced the piano which Renfroe had contracted and paid for; that Renfroe had no right of title or possession as against Hall, etc. Renfroe alone answered by general denial, and that Stiffler had possession of the piano and was the apparent owner, and, believing him to be the owner, he purchased it without notice or knowledge of plaintiff's right, title, or claim, and in good faith, for a valuable consideration; that, if Stiffler was the agent of plaintiff, that he delivered possession to Stiffler, and clothed him with the indicia of ownership; and that he bought in good faith, without notice, etc., and was an innocent purchaser, without any notice or knowledge of Stiffler's agency. The case was tried before the court, who rendered judgment for Hall for the piano and the rents due thereon, and filed the following findings of fact:

"(1) On or about the 25th of April, 1916, plaintiff shipped to defendant A. Stiffler the piano in controversy, to be sold by the said Stiffler, as agent for the plaintiff, under the terms of a written contract of agency introduced in evidence therein, whereby the title to said property was to remain in plaintiff until sold by the said stiffler, and the proceeds of sale were to be the property of plaintiff; that the wholesale market value of said piano was $350, and the retail market value of the same was $550.

"(2) That prior to the time said Stiffler made said contract with plaintiff, and prior to the time said Stiffler received said piano, he, the said Stiffler, had made a contract with defendant George Renfroe to trade him a piano in consideration of an automobile and a cow and calf. Said piano was selected by said Renfroe from cut and description shown in a catalogue which was shown by said Stiffler to said Renfroe.

"(3) The piano in controversy was shipped by plaintiff to Stiffler at Spur, Tex., and prior to its arrival Renfroe had delivered to Stiffler the automobile and cow and calf. Renfroe expected a piano of the kind he had ordered of Stiffler and Stiffler told Renfroe that he had a piano at the depot which was not exactly like the one he ordered, but that he (Renfroe) could take said piano and hold it until he (Stiffler) got another one. Stiffler further told Renfroe that this piano was his property, and he had paid for it, and delivered possession of the same to Renfroe, who at that time had no knowledge of any rights or claims of plaintiff, and the said Renfroe took the same in good faith, believing it to be the property of A. Stiffler.

"(4) Some two or three weeks after the delivery of the piano by Stiffler to Renfroe, plaintiff apprised Renfroe of his claims and demanded possession of the piano, which Renfroe refused, saying that he was going to keep the piano until Stiffler delivered him another one. After this Stiffler had a piano shipped to Spur, and asked Renfroe to exchange the piano in controversy for this piano. Renfroe expressed a willingness to do so, provided the piano suited him and his wife, but Renfroe ascertained that this piano had been shipped with bill of lading attached, and that there would have to be paid $180 before the same could be delivered to him. Stiffler said he did not have the money to pay this, and Renfroe refused to pay it. Stiffler failed and refused to deliver Renfroe another piano, and permitted Renfroe to keep the piano in controversy in satisfaction of the trade for the automobile and cow and calf.

"(5) That Renfroe has had said piano in his possession after demand, and the reasonable rental value of the same is the sum of $10 per month from June 1, 1916.

"(6) That defendant A. Stiffler has not paid plaintiff anything for said piano.

"(7) The written contract between plaintiff and A. Stiffler was as follows:

                                 "`Abilene, Texas, 4/25/16
                

"`I, A. Stiffler, have this day received of the Hall Music Co., one piano numbered 99134, styled 90, Werner Player, same to be held by me on sale for said Hall Music Co., as per agreement made this day, said piano to remain the property of the Hall Music Co. and to be immediately paid over to said Hall Music Co. It is further agreed...