Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Cooper

• Citation: 261 F. 635
• Decision Date: 12 May 1919
• Docket Number: 96.
• Parties: SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. v. COOPER, County Treasurer.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

261 F. 635

SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. v. COOPER, County Treasurer.

No. 96.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

May 12, 1919

Frank V. Benton, of Newport, Ky., for complainant.

John V Campbell and Smith Hickenlooper, both of Cincinnati, Ohio for defendant.

HOLLISTER District Judge.

Heard on motion to strike from answer. The questions involved in this motion arise under lengthy allegations in the bill and answer, which may, for present purposes, be stated comparatively briefly.

Complainant deals in sewing machines, which it delivers to its customers upon the execution by them of the following paper:

'This certifies that I, . . ., now residing at No. . . . street in the . . . of . . ., state of . . ., have rented and received from the Singer Sewing Machine Company, Inc. (whose corporate existence for all purposes is hereby admitted), hereinafter called the Company, through its shop at . . ., the sewing machine and accessories belonging thereto, described by indorsement hereon, all in good order, which I am to use with care and keep in like good order, and for the use of which I agree to pay to the company at said shop, rent in advance, as follows:

'The sum of . . . dollars cash and an old machine, for which . . . dollars has been allowed, for the first week/month; and the sum of . . . dollars cash on the . . . of each week/month thereafter, for . . . weeks/months.

'But if default shall be made in either of said payments, or if I shall sell, or offer to sell, remove, or attempt to remove, the said machine from my aforesaid residence without the written consent of the said Company, then and in that case, or at the expiration of the time for which the machine is rented, I will return and deliver the same to the said Company in good order, save reasonable wear, and the said Company or its agents may resume actual possession thereof, and I hereby authorize and empower the said Company or its agents, to enter the premises wherever said machine may be, and take and carry the same away, hereby waiving any action for trespass or damages therefor and disclaiming any right of resistance thereto, and also waive all right of homestead and other exemptions under the laws of said state as against this obligation, and agree that when this lease is terminated I shall not on any ground whatever, statutory or other, be entitled to any allowance, credit, return, or set-off for payments previously made.

'Witness my hand, this . . . day of . . ., 191 . . . .

'Lessee's Signature: . . . .

'Witness: . . . .

'Accepted for Singer Sewing Machine Company, Incorporated, by . . . .

'Notice to the Person Signing This Lease.-- Read the terms of this lease before signing it, as no statement, settlement, agreement, or understanding, verbal or written, not contained therein, will be recognized.'

The bill alleges an agreement at the same time that a monthly payment of from $1 to $2 is to be made for the purchase of the machine on the installment plan, the payment continuing until the agreed purchase price is duly paid; that the customer shall have possession of the sewing machine, and become the owner of it and retain it until the full purchase price is paid; that, in order to secure the payment of the unpaid part of the purchase price, the above paper is delivered to the complainant.

The answer avers that hearings were had before the tax commission; that the plaintiff appeared 'and furnished evidence of the value of plaintiff's property subject to taxation in Hamilton county and elsewhere throughout the state of Ohio for the years in question, including the number of sewing machines sold and leased by it, the nature of said sales, and the average value of goods and merchandise owned in the various counties of said state for said years.'

The complainant's position is that it is not the owner of the machines so dealt with, but that the customer is the owner, and therefore complainant should not be taxed as owner.

From these allegations and averments the conclusion must be that the taxing authorities had before them 'the nature of such sales' as described in the bill. Cases almost innumerable have been cited and considered, in all of which it has been held that, notwithstanding the written paper between the parties, all the facts may be considered, in order to determine their real purpose and intention; but in only two was such a 'lease' involved as the paper above set forth. In most of them the legal title was retained by the seller, and the conclusion was that the transaction was a conditional sale.

It will serve no useful purpose to discuss the many cases at length but in Singer Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 40 S.C. 529, 19 S.E. 132, 42 Am.St.Rep. 897, the so-called 'lease' was...