Thompson v. White Sewing Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 10,846.,10,846.
• Citation: 179 Mo. App. 276,166 S.W. 895
• Parties: THOMPSON v. WHITE SEWING MACH. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

166 S.W. 895

179 Mo. App. 276

THOMPSON v. WHITE SEWING MACH. CO.

No. 10,846.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 4, 1914.

1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES (§ 161)—RIGHT TO POSSESSION—DEFAULT.

Where plaintiff bought a sewing machine and gave a chattel mortgage to secure a balance of the price, providing that if the note was not paid when due possession could be taken by defendant, defendant, having secured possession peaceably to repair the machine when the last installment of the price had been due more than a year, was entitled to refuse to return the machine until the balance had been paid.

2. CHATTEL MORTGAGES (§ 252)—PAYMENT OF DEBT—DEMAND.

Where a chattel mortgagee obtained peaceable possession of the mortgaged property, its refusal to redeliver to the mortgagor unless the balance of the debt which was then overdue was paid was a sufficient demand.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Wm. D. Rusk, Judge.

Action by Aretta Thompson against the White Sewing Machine Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

A. Bowers, of St. Joseph, for appellant. Thompson, Griswold & Thompson, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is for trover and conversion of a sewing machine. She recovered judgment in the circuit court for $62.

It appears that plaintiff bought the machine from defendant for $70, putting in her old machine for $28, and executing her note due on demand for $42 balance, payable in monthly installments of $3, and a chattel mortgage securing payment of the note wherein possession was reserved to her; but providing that, if the note was not paid when due, possession could be taken by defendant. After she had paid all but a balance of $8 on the note, the machine became out of order, and she requested defendant to take it for repair. They did so, and after repairing it, refused, on her demand, to redeliver until she paid the balance on the note. At this time the last installment had been due more than a year.

We cannot see any legal ground upon which plaintiff should be allowed to maintain her action. After default in the payment of the note according to its terms, defendant became the legal owner and entitled to the possession of the property. Robinson v. Campbell, 8 Mo. 365; Bowens v. Benson, 57 Mo. 26; McCandless v. Moore, 50 Mo. 511; Lacey v. Giboney, 36 Mo. 320, 88 Am. Dec. 145; Edmonston v. Jones, 96 Mo. App. 83, 69 S. W. 741; Turner v. Brown, 82 Mo. App. 30.

Defendant had a right...