Witherspoon v. Choctaw Culvert & Machinery Co.
Decision Date | 29 February 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 9268.,9268. |
Citation | 56 F.2d 984 |
Parties | WITHERSPOON v. CHOCTAW CULVERT & MACHINERY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
A. F. House, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
George B. Pugh, H. T. Harrison, and Thomas S. Buzbee, all of Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before KENYON, VAN VALKENBURGH, and GARDNER, Circuit Judges.
The appellee as plaintiff brought this action at law to recover from the appellant as defendant the possession of certain machinery referred to in the record as a gasoline shovel, with certain accessories and appliances. The action was one in replevin, and the property involved was taken under a writ of replevin.
For convenience the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
On the 15th of December, 1928, plaintiff entered into a contract with the Arkansas General Construction Company for the sale of the property involved in this action. By the terms of this written contract, the Arkansas General Construction Company as purchaser agreed to pay for the machinery purchased the sum of $11,304.61, of which amount it paid in cash at the time of the execution of the contract $1,032.61, and gave plaintiff its twelve promissory conditional sales notes, each for the sum of $856, maturing, one on or before the 15th of March, 1929, and one on or before the 15th day of each month thereafter until all were paid or otherwise collected in rents, "provided, however, the maturity and payment of interest and principal of said notes are conditioned as follows, to-wit:
The machinery was delivered to the purchaser, Arkansas General Construction Company, about the time of the date of the contract, and there had been paid on the purchase price approximately $8,500, which included the notes payable in January, February, March, April, and May. At the time of the maturity of the June note an extension of the remaining notes was granted, and thereafter, pursuant to provisions of the contract, the purchaser gave plaintiff written notice that the shovel was available for rent, and called upon it to rent the same for the credit of the purchaser. This the plaintiff did not do, but under date September 5, 1929, wrote the president of the purchaser, inquiring as to the location of the machine, stating that it wished to know "where to carry prospective customers to rent this machine and show it to them."
Thereafter, the exact date of which does not appear in the record, in a suit brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, wherein Home Accident Insurance Company was plaintiff, and the Arkansas General Construction Company was defendant, a receiver was appointed of all the property of the Arkansas General Construction Company, with power to demand, sue for, collect, and take possession of all properties, credits, and rights of every description belonging to said corporation. By the order of his appointment, the receiver was allowed six months from the date of his appointment within which to elect to adopt or continue in force, or refuse to adopt or continue in force, any lease or contract not fully performed and pending, but the order provided that none of the receiver's acts or omissions in the performance or failure to perform such contracts should constitute or be considered an election to adopt or an estoppel to renounce any of them.
On the 11th of December, 1929, the receiver, pursuant to order of court, sold to the defendant in this action all equity of the Arkansas General Construction Company in and to the machinery, subject to the lien of the plaintiff for the balance of the purchase price, the purchaser to assume performance of all conditions of the contract under which the machinery was sold. The defendant paid the receiver $1,087.50 as the purchase price, in addition to assuming the performance of all conditions of the contract, and the receiver transferred to her all right, title, and interest of the Arkansas General Construction Company in and to the property, together with all the right, title, and interest of said company in and to the contract of purchase for said property, and covenanted that the property was clear from any claim of the creditors of the company, except the claim of the Choctaw Culvert & Machinery Company. After the purchase of the machinery, defendant notified plaintiff by letter dated December 21, 1929, that she had purchased the equity of the Arkansas General Construction Company in the shovel and contract, and that the shovel had been moved to Little Rock, where it could be better cared for. This letter contains the following paragraph: "Please bear in mind that it is still available for rent, and that it can be shown to prospective customers for its rental at anytime."
A jury being waived, the action was tried to the court, and the issue determined in favor of plaintiff. From this judgment defendant has appealed, contending that under the undisputed evidence judgment should have gone in her favor.
There is no dispute in the evidence, and hence only questions of law are presented. The action, being one in replevin, is strictly a proceeding at law; and the issue to be determined was plaintiff's right to immediate possession, and the question of title is only pertinent as it may bear upon the right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. George, CA 04-1173.
...(1946). "It is an elementary rule that a person who has himself broken a contract cannot recover on it." Witherspoon v. Choctaw Culvert & Mach. Co., 56 F.2d 984, 988 (8th Cir.1932). Forfeitures, however, are not favored in the law, and a relatively minor failure of performance on the part o......
-
Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co. v. Lauchli
...55 C.J., p. 1212, § 1199, and cases in notes thereto; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 251, 25 L.Ed. 339; Witherspoon v. Choctaw C. & M. Co., this Court, 56 F.2d 984, 988; J. D. Pittman Tractor Co. v. Bolton, 238 Ala. 300, 191 So. 360, 362; Gas City Transfer Co. v. Miller, Ind.App., 21 N.E.2......
-
Garoogian v. Medlock
...be maintained upon an ownership interest and right to possession acquired after suit has been brought. Witherspoon v. Choctaw Culvert & Mach. Co., 56 F.2d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 1932); Lambert v. Tucker, 83 Ark. 416, 104 S.W. 131 (1907); McKennon v. May, 39 Ark. 442 Medlock argues first that by......
-
3100 Arsenal Holdings, LLC v. Tremco Inc.
... ... Witherspoon v. Choctaw Culvert & Mach. Co. , 56 F.2d ... 984, 988 (8th Cir ... ...