Southland Inv. Co. v. Motor Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 36030. |
| Citation | 198 La. 1028,5 So.2d 324 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOUTHLAND INV. CO., Inc., v. MOTOR SALES CO. et al. |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1941.
J. B. Crow, of Shreveport, for plaintiff and appellant.
Turner B. Morgan, of Shreveport, for defendants and appellees.
The Southland Investment Company, Inc., a finance company doing business in Shreveport, Louisiana, instituted this suit to recover a judgment in the sum of $7,824.43 (together with interest and attorney's L. M. Stevens, and Mrs. L. M. Stevens, jointly and in solido, being the amount alleged to be due on a number of notes endorsed by the defendants and acquired fro them in due course by the plaintiff.
For cause of action the plaintiff alleged that the Motor Sales Company is a commercial partnership composed of L. M. Stevens and his wife and is engaged in the business of selling new and used automobiles in Haynesville; that it (plaintiff) purchased notes given the defendants as part payment of the purchase price of automobiles during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938 which notes, secured by chattel mortgage and vendor's lien on the cars purchased, were endorsed by the defendants that some 58 persons whose notes were so acquired by the plaintiff defaulted in their payments; that the plaintiff pursuant to an agreement had with the defendants, repossessed these respectiye automobiles, 34 (listed and described in a statement made a part of the record and marked Exhibit A) being sold at private sale and the proceeds thereof (after deduction of the costs incidental to the sale) applied toward the liquidation of the obligation on the respective unpaid notes, the aggregate amount remaining due thereon being $3,617.50; and that the remaining 24 automobiles (listed and described in a statement made a part of the record and marked Exhibit B) are still in the possession of the plaintiff, the balance due thereon being $4,206.93.
The defendants filed exceptions of no cause and no right of action, of vagueness, and of improper articulation. On the merits they answered generally denying the allegations of plaintiff's petition and then, assuming the position of plaintiffs in reconvention, sought to recover a judgment against the Southland Investment Company, Inc. (plaintiff in the main demand), in the amount of $8,475.28, which amount they alleged was withheld out of the proceeds of the sales of the notes acquired by the investment company from them during the years 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938 without any accounting therefor. In the alternative the plaintiffs in reconvention pleaded this amount in compensation of or as an offset to any judgment that might be rendered against them on the main demand.
The trial judge rendered judgment against the Motor Sales Company and L. M. Stevens, individually, in the sum of $3,617.50, but maintained the defendants' plea in compensation, offsetting this amount with the funds held by the plaintiff as a reserve; non-suited the plaintiff's claim for $4,206.93; and taxed the costs equally between the plaintiff and the said defendants.
The plaintiff has appealed and the defendants, answering the appeal, complain that the judgment against L. M. Stevens is incorrect.
The facts of this case, as revealed by the record, show that the defendant Motor Sales Company, a company engaged in the business of buying and selling new and second-hand automobiles, entered into an agreement with the Southland Investment Company, Inc., whereby the sales consummated by the defendant company were refinanced by the investment company's purchase of the notes given to the defendant company in part payment of the automobiles purchased from them. Under this agreement the plaintiff was to reserve a portion of the amount paid for the notes in order that a fund might be accumulated to offset any loss the plaintiff might incur through these transactions. The plaintiff was charged with the duty of repossessing any cars upon which the installments were not paid and of turning them over to the defendant company within 90 days. It was understood that the defendants' liability, irrespective of the unconditional endorsement on the back of the notes, would only begin when these repossessed cars were so turned over to them.
This court has expressed some doubt as to whether or not Act No. 283 of 1928 permits a husband and wife to contract with each other (Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate Co., 185 La 751, 170 So. 785; see, also, 9 Tulane Law Review 102; and 1 Louisiana Law Review 427), but we find it unnecessary to pass upon this point in disposing of the plaintiff's contention that the Motor Sales Company is a commercial partnership composed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University Properties Corp. v. Fidelity Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge
...judgment against the defendants. Dufour, 465 So.2d at 166. Louisiana Supreme Court Jurisprudence In Southland Inv. Co. v. Motor Sales Co., 198 La. 1028, 5 So.2d 324 (1941), the debtors were a husband and wife who operated a commercial partnership that bought and sold new and used cars. When......
-
Newtek Small Bus. Fin., LLC v. Baker
...Civil Code articles and the original legislative intent of the LDJA. That legislative intent is found in Southland Investment v. Motor Sales Co ., 198 La. 1028, 5 So.2d 324 (1941), rendered eight years after the LDJA was passed. In Southland, the supreme court rejected an attempt to use the......
-
Meadow Brook National Bank v. Massengill
...Credit Equipment Corp. v. Larry Parrott of Gueydon, Inc. 212 So.2d 860, 864 (La.App.1968) (on rehearing); Southland Investment Co. v. Motor Sales Co., 198 La. 1028, 5 So.2d 324 (1941). But see 15 La.L.Rev. 865 8 Lafayette Royale Apts., Inc. v. Meadow Brook National Bank, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.......
-
First Nat. Bank of Houma v. Bailey
...without the creditor losing his right to a deficiency judgment where all parties are in agreement. Southland Inv. Co., Inc. v. Motor Sales, Inc., 198 La. 1028, 5 So.2d 324 (1941); Hammond Finance Co. v. Carter, 83 So.2d 682 (La.App. 1st Cir.1955); Commercial Credit Equipment Corp. v. Larry ......