Wray Bros. v. H. A. White Auto Co.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 178.)
• Citation: 244 S.W. 18
• Parties: WRAY BROS. et al. v. H. A. WHITE AUTO CO. OF MEMPHIS, TENN., et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

244 S.W. 18

WRAY BROS. et al. v. H. A. WHITE AUTO CO. OF MEMPHIS, TENN., et al.

(No. 178.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prairie County; George W. Clark, Judge.

Suit by Wray Bros. and Emmet Vaughan against J. G. Galloway, in which attachments were levied on property belonging to the defendant, and in which the H. A. White Auto Company of Memphis, Tenn., intervened, claiming a lien superior to the attachment liens of the plaintiffs. From a judgment for interpleader on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Wray Bros. and Emmet Vaughan brought separate suits by attachment against J. G. Galloway before a justice of the peace, and attachments were levied upon a Buick automobile belonging to the defendant. The White Auto Company was allowed to intervene orally, and by consent of the parties the cases were consolidated and proceeded to trial between the plaintiffs, Wray Bros. and Emmet Vaughan and the interpleader, White Auto Company. The justice found for the plaintiffs and sustained the attachment. The White Auto Company duly prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. There the claim of Wray Bros. against J. G. Galloway for supplies and repairs on the automobile was established to the amount of $97.50. Emmet Vaughan proved that Galloway was indebted to him in the sum of $300 for legal services.

According to the testimony of A. B. Clapp, he was the general manager of the White Auto Company and sold the automobile to J. G. Galloway in the state of Tennessee. Galloway paid part of the purchase money and gave his notes for the balance of it. A mortgage was given on the automobile to secure the balance of its purchase price; $1,300 was the amount due on the purchase price of the automobile at the time the White Auto Company was allowed to become a party to the present suit. The mortgage for the purchase price was duly recorded as required by statute in the state of Tennessee. Galloway brought the automobile to Arkansas without the consent of the mortgagee. The latter used every means to locate Galloway, and failed to do so until he was located at Cotton Plant, Ark., about three years after the automobile was sold to him and the mortgage given for the balance of the purchase price.

According to the testimony of the plaintiffs, they did not know that Galloway had given a mortgage on the car to secure the balance of the purchase price, and they also introduced evidence tending to show that the White Auto Company knew that the automobile in question had been brought into the state of Arkansas by Galloway. The court found the issues in favor of the White Auto Company, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

Emmet Vaughan, of Des Arc, for appellants.

E. L. Westbrooke, of Jonesboro, for appellees.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The undisputed evidence in the record shows that J. G. Galloway executed a valid mortgage on a Buick automobile to the H. A. White Auto Company of Memphis, Tenn., to secure the balance of the purchase price thereof in the sum of $1,300 and that...