Singer Mfg. Co. v. Draper

• Decision Date: 27 September 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 879,103 Tenn. 262
• Parties: SINGER MFG. CO. v. DRAPER. SAME v. LOONEY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

52 S.W. 879

103 Tenn. 262

SINGER MFG. CO. v. DRAPER.

SAME v. LOONEY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September 27, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Hawkins county; H. T. Campbell, Judge.

Actions by the Singer Manufacturing Company against H. M. Draper and Mary Looney, respectively. Judgments for defendant in each case, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. T Bowen, for appellant.

Huffmaster & Chesnutt, for appellees.

WILKES J.

These two suits are actions of replevin, and involve substantially the same questions of law. On the 13th of November, 1896, the Singer Manufacturing Company, through its local agent in Hawkins county, sold to H. M. Draper a sewing machine, and on the 21st of February, 1896, sold a machine to Mary Looney the contracts in each case being in writing and the same; the company in each case retaining the title to the machines until paid for, together with a right to retake them on default of payment. Default was made on each machine after partial payments had been made, and replevin was brought before a justice of the peace for each, the machine in the Draper case being valued at $50, and in the Looney case at $40. The machines were taken out of the possession of the purchasers, and put into the possession of the company. On trial in the circuit court, the judge held that the company was not entitled to retake the machines, and gave judgment in the Draper case for $50, the value of the machine, and $19.50 damages for the detention; and in the Looney case for $40 and $2.50 damages for detention; and the company has appealed to this court, and assigned the same errors in each case.

The cases were heard upon an agreed statement of facts, and among others not necessary to mention, is one that, when these sales were made, the company had not paid any license tax for 1896 to sell machines in Hawkins county, as required by statute, and had paid none for five or more years previous to that date. The learned circuit judge held that for this failure to comply with the law the company could not sue to enforce the contract, and could have no standing in the courts for any purpose whatever. The company assigns this holding as error. At the time these contracts were made, the act of 1895 (Acts 1895, c. 120) was in force. Section 65 of that act provides that the occupations and business transactions that should be deemed privileged would be enumerated in, the revenue law, and should be...