Wright v. Horton

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MORGAN, C. J.
• Citation: Wright v. Horton, 32 Idaho 516, 185 P. 555 (Idaho 1919)
• Decision Date: 25 November 1919
• Parties: G. G. WRIGHT, Respondent, v. W. H. HORTON and HARRY HORTON, Appellants

185 P. 555

32 Idaho 516

G. G. WRIGHT, Respondent, v. W. H. HORTON and HARRY HORTON, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 25, 1919

CONTRACTS-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-CONDITIONAL SALES.

1. A conditional sale contract wherein it is provided that the vendor of personal property retains title until the purchase price is paid and, should he deem himself insecure, may declare the debt due before maturity, repossess and sell the property, and apply the proceeds on the debt, or, without sale, indorse the reasonable value thereof on the contract is non-negotiable.

[As to what is negotiable note, see note in Ann.Cas. 1912A, 4.]

2. Where, pursuant to such a contract, the property is repossessed and sold for sufficient to pay the debt, or repossessed and not sold, and the reasonable value thereof is found to be sufficient to pay the debt, the obligation of the maker is discharged.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Bingham County. Hon. F. J. Cowen, Judge.

Action on conditional sale contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Judgment reversed, with direction. Costs awarded to appellants.

John W Jones and J. H. Anderson, for Appellants.

The note upon which this action is brought is non-negotiable. (Kimpton v. Studebaker Bros. Co., 14 Idaho 552, 125 Am. St. 185, 14 Ann. Cas. 1126, 94 P. 1039.)

In a case of this character there is no sale of the property, but only an agreement for sale. (Pease v. Teller Corporation, 22 Idaho 807, 128 P. 981.)

After retaking or recovering the property under a contract of this kind for a default of the buyer, the seller cannot thereafter maintain an action to recover a balance due on the purchase price, or on notes given therefor. When the property is retaken by the seller, no further rights exist under the contract against the purchaser. (Poirier Mfg. Co. v Kitts, 18 N.D. 556, 120 N.W. 558; Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 27 Minn. 495, 8 N.W. 597; Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 43 Minn. 409, 45 N.W. 852; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Cassellius, 74 Minn. 115, 76 N.W. 1028; Alden v. W. J. Dyer & Bro., 92 Minn. 134, 99 N.W. 784; Nelson v. International Harvester Co., 117 Minn. 298, 135 N.W. 808; C. W. Raymond Co. v. Kahn, 124 Minn. 426, 145 N.W. 164, 51 L. R. A., N. S., 251; Pacific Carbonator Co. v. Haydes & Sons, 26 Cal.App. 607, 147 P. 988; Turk v. Carnahan, 25 Ind.App. 125, 81 Am. St. 85, 57 N.E. 729.)

Hansbrough & Gagon, for Respondent.

Whenever a series of notes have been given for the same property, all in the same form, retaining title to the property in the seller, an indorsement and transfer of one or more of said notes by the seller transfers title to the purchaser. (Dilley et al. v. Freedman, 25 Tex. Civ. 39, 60 S.W. 448; Douglass v. Blount, 22 Tex. Civ. 493, 55 S.W. 526, and authorities there cited.)

MORGAN, C. J. Rice, J., concurs. Budge, J., sat at the hearing in this case, but took no part in the decision.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

The facts of this case necessary to an understanding of the question of law decided are that W. H. Horton purchased an automobile from Carl Snodgrass and in part payment therefor executed and delivered to him two conditional sale contracts incorporated in one of which was a promissory note for $ 300 and in the other a like note for $ 900. His wife, Hattie Horton, was a joint maker of the contracts and the one containing the $ 900 note was, some time after its delivery, indorsed by their sons, C. W. Horton and Harry Horton. Two of the conditions of these contracts were: Snodgrass retained title in the automobile until the notes were paid; he might declare the notes due and repossess the property, even before maturity of the debt, should he deem himself insecure. Each of the contracts contained the following provision:

"In case this property shall be taken back, Carl Snodgrass may sell the same at public or private sale without notice, and apply the proceeds on this note; or they may, without sale, indorse the reasonable value of the property on this note, and I, we, or either of us, agree to pay any balance due thereon after such indorsement, as damages and for the use of said property."

Snodgrass sold and assigned the contract containing the $ 900 note to respondent, and thereafter repossessed the automobile and indorsed, as its value, $ 250 on the contract containing the $ 300 note. Respondent commenced this action to recover according to the terms of the promissory note incorporated in his contract. Snodgrass failed to appear and his default was entered. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of respondent a...