Wray Brothers v. H. A. White Auto Company
| Decision Date | 09 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | 178 |
| Citation | 244 S.W. 18,155 Ark. 153 |
| Parties | WRAY BROTHERS v. H. A. WHITE AUTO COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; George W Clark, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
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 Co. The justice found for the plaintiffs and sustained the attachment. The White Auto Co. 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 Co., 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. $ 1300 was the amount due on the purchase price of the automobile at the time the White Auto Co. 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 Co. 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 Co., and judgment was rendered accordingly.
Judgment affirmed.
Emmet Vaughan, for appellants.
We concede that the rule of comity between States is recognized and given effect in this State, and that it is supported by the weight of authority; but we do not understand that it is a rule which should be given effect without limitation, and we do not believe that where, as in this case, the owner of property mortgaged in another State used the same as his own property in this State for three years without objection or assertion of any claim by the mortgagee in the other State and without his making any effort to establish his rights here under past due notes secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee ought to be given any preference over bona fide lien holders in this State. The court should hold that the rule of comity between States is available only to those who are prompt in asserting their rights. This is a Tennessee contract. There is no proof that the lien of a chattel mortgage there extends over a period of three years, yet it was incumbent on the appellee to prove that his lien was in existence under the laws of that State. 52 Ark. 387, 388.
2. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction should have been sustained. C. & M. Digest, § 544. There was no intervention filed at all, and nothing before the court to answer or controvert. The requirements of the statute are jurisdictional. 28 Ark. 362.
E. L. Westbrooke, for appellee.
1. Written pleadings are not required in a court of a justice of the peace. 87 Ark. 424; 115 Id. 423. Moreover, everything leading up to the trial in the justice of the peace court was by consent of parties.
Before the trial in the circuit court appellee intervened in writing under oath, and appellant's motion to dismiss was made after the intervention was filed. They should have answered. 58 Ark. 446.
2. The court properly took judicial knowledge of the fact that the lien of a chattel mortgage in Tennessee extends over a period of three years, and appellants' reference to 52 Ark. 387 is unavailing.
A chattel mortgage duly executed and recorded in another State upon property there situate, which was subsequently removed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial