The Winchester Wagon Works And Manufacturing Co. v. Carman

• Decision Date: 05 January 1887
• Docket Number: 12,789
• Parties: The Winchester Wagon Works and Manufacturing Company v. Carman
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

9 N.E. 707

109 Ind. 31

The Winchester Wagon Works and Manufacturing Company v. Carman

No. 12,789

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 5, 1887

From the Wayne Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

T. J Study, W. A. Thompson, A. O. Marsh and J. W. Thompson, for appellant.

H. U Johnson and P. J. Freeman, for appellee.

OPINION

Howk J.

This was a suit by the appellant to recover the possession of two wagons, of the value of $ 127, of which, as alleged, it was the owner and entitled to the possession; and further it was alleged, that appellee had possession of such wagons without right or title, and unlawfully and wrongfully detained the same from appellant. Wherefore, etc.

The cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned for appellee, the defendant below; and over appellant's motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment for appellee upon and in accordance with the verdict.

The only error assigned here by the appellant is the overruling of its motion for a new trial.

The facts of this case were substantially as follows: On, and for some time prior to, the 29th day of July, 1884, appellant was and had been engaged in the manufacture of wagons and in the sale thereof at wholesale to retail dealers therein. On, and for some time before, the day last named, one J. B. Stewart was and had been a retail dealer in wagons and other implements, and a customer of the appellant. On the day last named, pursuant to a written contract theretofore entered into, appellant sold and delivered to said J. B. Stewart, at College Corner, Ohio, "a car load of twenty wagons," for the aggregate sum of $ 1,287.50, payable in three installments, evidenced by Stewart's three notes to the appellant, maturing respectively on the 29th day of November, 1884, and on the 29th days of January and March 1885. It was stipulated in such written agreement, and in each of Stewart's three notes, that the title to the car load of wagons should remain in appellant until such notes were fully paid. The two wagons, which are in controversy in this action, were a part of such car load of wagons so sold and delivered by appellant to J. B. Stewart, and were by him sold and delivered in January, 1885, to one Benjamin Wolverton, who, "several days afterwards," sold them to appellee. In consideration of the sale of the two wagons to him, Wolverton sold and conveyed to said J. B. Stewart 320 acres of land in Reynolds county, Missouri. Afterwards, J. B. Stewart sold and conveyed the same Missouri land to the appellant, with full knowledge on its part that all that Stewart ever gave for such land was the two wagons, of which it now claims to be the owner in this action. Appellant took the conveyance of such land, at the agreed price of $ 480, and with Stewart's consent gave him credit for that amount on an old debt, which he owed appellant for other wagons sold and delivered by it to him, prior to its sale and delivery as aforesaid of such "car load of twenty wagons." After appellant obtained its deed for such Missouri land, it commenced this suit against appellee to recover the possession of the two wagons which Stewart gave for such land.

At appellee's request, the trial court instructed the jury that if they found the facts of this case to be substantially as we have stated them, "the plaintiff can not recover said two wagons from defendant in this action, even though said Wolverton knew, at the time he traded such land for the two wagons, that the title to such wagons was in plaintiff, and even though plaintiff and said Stewart, at the time plaintiff took a deed of such land to itself, applied the same upon an existing indebtedness of said Stewart to the plaintiff other than the purchase-money for said two wagons."

The trial court refused to instruct the jury, when requested by appellant, as follows:

"If the wagons in controversy were sold by the plaintiff to one J. B. Stewart, on or about the 29th day of July, 1884, upon the express condition that the title to the wagons should remain in plaintiff until the purchase-price, which Stewart agreed to pay for the same, should be paid, and if said Stewart afterwards, without the consent of plaintiff, and without the wagons having been paid for, traded such wagons to one Wolverton for certain land in the State of Missouri, and thereafter said Wolverton traded or sold such wagons to the defendant, without the consent of plaintiff, and without the purchase-price which Stewart agreed to pay plaintiff for said wagons having been paid, the fact that plaintiff accepted a conveyance of such land from said Stewart, but not in satisfaction of nor in payment upon the amount which Stewart agreed to pay plaintiff for said wagons, did not estop nor deprive plaintiff of the right to recover said wagons from the defendant."

Appellant also requested the court to give the jury another instruction, which was refused; but as it does not differ in substance, or in legal effect, from the instruction last quoted, we need not set out such other instruction in this opinion.

It is claimed by appellant's counsel, that the court below erred both in giving the instruction requested by appellee, and in refusing to give the instructions asked for by appellant; and these alleged errors of law were assigned by it as causes for a new trial, in its motion therefor. These errors of law fairly present for our decision what we regard as the controlling question in this case, namely: Upon the facts shown by the evidence, as we have heretofore stated them, was appellant's conditional sale of the car load of wagons to J. B. Stewart valid and binding, or was the condition fraudulent and void, as against the appellee?

The law seems to be well settled in this State, that where the owner of personal property sells and delivers it to a purchaser, not for the purposes of consumption or resale, at an agreed price payable at a future day, upon the express condition and agreement that the title to such property should remain in the vendor thereof until the purchase-price was fully paid, the vendee of such property, prior to such payment, can neither sell nor encumber the property in such manner as to defeat the title of the original owner and vendor thereof. Thomas v....