{ "id": 8629024, "name": "TWIN CITY MOTOR COMPANY v. ROUZER MOTOR COMPANY and COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION", "name_abbreviation": "Twin City Motor Co. v. Rouzer Motor Co.", "decision_date": "1929-06-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "371", "last_page": "375", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 N.C. 371" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "72 Me., 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 8844040 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/72/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270739 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S. E., 714", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N. C., 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659328 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/124/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273991 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658026 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S. E., 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655152 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Am. Dec., 582", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Me., 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 665772 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/32/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N. C., 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269561 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N. C., 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N. C., 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274493 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/86/0455-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 655, "char_count": 13387, "ocr_confidence": 0.467, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6995063145122076e-07, "percentile": 0.9286622501929649 }, "sha256": "2c85034f4ee32354673812048dd991fdbb15d0b3a293e2ff446a17347773e22d", "simhash": "1:257ee05ad6c4f2bd", "word_count": 2296 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "TWIN CITY MOTOR COMPANY v. ROUZER MOTOR COMPANY and COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clarkson, J.\n(1) Is the description in the conditional sales agreement sufficient for the purpose of identifying the property in question? \"We think so. The facts agreed to in regard to the description is as follows: One S. H. coupe No., Model T. (hereafter called the \u201ccar\u201d). The-abbreviation of the words \u201csecond-hand\u201d is S. H., and the words \u201cModel T\u201d in said agreement refer to a particular type of Ford automobile. The same was purchased from Rouzer Motor Company on 3 May, 1926, by 'William Simpson, being one S. H. coupe No., Model T, and the only automobile owned by William Simpson.\nBoth plaintiff and defendants cite Stephenson v. R. R., 86 N. C., 455, and we will do the same. The general principle is laid down by Ruffin, J., at pp. 456-7, as follows: \u201cWe concur in the view taken by his Honor. While it cannot be expected that a mortgage should set forth a description of the property conveyed with such certainty that it may be.identified by the terms of the instrument alone, and without the aid of evidence aliunde to fit the description to the thing, still it is necessary that it should furnish some description of the property accompanied with such certainty as will enable third parties, aided by inquiries which the deed itself suggests, to identify it. This latter has been held sufficient, under the maxim id certum est quod certum reddi potest, and from necessity \u2014 it being many times impossible to set out such a description of the thing conveyed, as would in itself be absolutely certain and complete. But a less degree of certainty will not suffice, and especially under our registry laws, the fundamental policy of which is to give such notice to third parties as will enable them to deal securely with reference to the property conveyed in mortgage.\u201d\nIn Spivey v. Grant, 96 N. C., at p. 223-4, it is said: \u201cThe possession of a single horse, and none others by the vendor in a conveyance of a horse, without more specific description, sufficiently points out and designates the animal to transfer property to the vendee. In Sharp v. Pearce, 74 N. C., 600, the conveyance was of \u2018one horse,\u2019 and this was recognized as a sufficient identification.\u201d Alston v. Savage, 173 N. C., 213; see Atkinson v. Graves, 91 N. C., 99.\n11 C. J. (Chattel Mortgages), sec. 8\u00cd, p. 461, makes the following: observations: \u201cThe scarcity or plentitude of chattels similar to those mortgaged is an element to be considered in determining the sufficiency of the description of the chattels covered by the mortgage, and the nonexistence of other property to which the terms of the mortgage could apply frequently renders valid a description in a mortgage which otherwise would be too indefinite.\u201d\n(2) Do the improvements or repairs placed on said car become the property of the defendants under the terms of their duly registered agreement, and also by the doctrine of accession? \"We think so.\nIt is a general rule of law that if the materials of one person are united to the materials of another by labor, forming a joint product, the owner of the principal materials will acquire the right of property in the whole by right of accession. Pulcifer v. Page, 32 Me., 404, 405, 54 Am. Dec., 582.\u201d 1 Words and Phrases Judicially Defined, p. 59.\nIn Gregory v. Stryker, 2 Denio (N. Y.), at p. 630, speaking to the subject, it is said: \u201cBut it is equally clear, as a general proposition, that where the owner of a damaged or worn out article delivers it to another person to be repaired and renovated by the labor and materials of the-latter, the property in the article, as thus repaired and improved, is all along in the original owner, for whom the repairs were made, and not in the person making them.\u201d Comins v. Newton, 10 Allen (Mass.), 518; Southworth v. Isham, 5 N. Y. Sup., 448.\nC. S., 2435, in part, is as follows: \u201cAny mechanic or artisan wlm makes, alters or repairs any article of personal property at the request of the owner or legal possessor of such property has a lien on such property so made, altered or repaired for bis just and reasonable charge for bis work done and material furnished, and may bold and retain possession of same until such just and reasonable charges are paid,\u201d etc. Where the vendor of an automobile takes a purchase-money mortgage and transfers the possession to the vendee, it is with the implied authority in the vendee that he may use the machine and keep it in such reasonable and just repair as the use will require; and where, at his instance, a mechanic has repaired the same, his reasonable charge for such repairs creates a lien on the automobile, retained in his possession, superior to that of the vendor\u2019s mortgage. Johnson v. Yates, 183 N. C., 24, 11 S. E., 630; Sales Co. v. White, 183 N. C., 671.\nUnder this section: The lien on personal property given by this section applies when possession is retained by the mechanic. Glazener v. Gloucester Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 676, 83 S. E., 696. If the mechanic or artisan surrenders possession of the property, he loses his lien. Tedder v. R. R., 124 N. C., 342, 32 S. E., 714.\nThe conditional sales agreement made by William Simpson distinctly says, \u201cThe conditions of this agreement are, that delivery of the car by seller to purchaser does not pass title thereto, hut hoth the car and all additions and improvements thereto, and the title thereto shall not pass by such delivery, but are and shall remain vested in and be the property of the seller and assigns (any extension or assignment of said notes shall not waive this or any other condition herein contained) until said notes, or any renewals thereof, evidencing said installments or purchase price, and all interest thereon, are paid in full.\u201d\nIn Bank v. Pearson, 186 N. C., at p. 613, the following principle is laid down: \u201cOn the third objection it is the approved principle in this jurisdiction that a mortgage will be held to extend to and include after-acquired property 'when it so states in express terms, or it clearly appears from the language used that such was its manifest intention.\u2019 Lumber Co., v. Lumber Co., 150 N. C., 282; Dry Kiln Co. v. Ellington, 172 N. C., 481-484.\u201d Hamlin v. Jerrard, 72 Me., 62.\nPlaintiff had the- possession of the car upon which defendants had a lien properly registered when it installed in the car a new engine or motor to replace the old one. It relinquished possession and thereby relinquished its lien for the repairs. It then took a conditional sale note purporting to be for the purchase price, of \u201cone Ford coupe automobile, engine No. 14860614.\u201d At the same time the plaintiff had the said William Simpson to execute a chattel mortgage on \u201cone Ford coupe automobile, motor No. 14860614,\u201d both of which instruments were duly recorded in Forsyth County.\nThe authorities are conflicting in other jurisdictions. The lien of defendants is superior to that of plaintiff. The judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clarkson, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lee Overman Gregory and F. L. Webster for plaintiff.", "John Kesler and P. S. Garit\u00f3n for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TWIN CITY MOTOR COMPANY v. ROUZER MOTOR COMPANY and COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION.\n(Filed 12 June, 1929.)\n1. Chattel Mortgages A h \u2014 In this case held, description of chattel in chattel mortgage sufficient for identification.\nThe description in a chattel mortgage for the purchase price of an automobile \u201cone S. H. Coupe No. Model T\u201d is sufficient to admit evidence aliunde for the purpose of identification when the purchaser owned only one automobile, the abbreviation \u201cS. H.\u201d meaning \u201csecondhand,\u201d and \u201cModel T,\u201d a certain type of Ford; and when registered and identified is superior to a later registered mortgage given by the purchaser to others.\n3. Chattel Mortgages B c \u2014 Registered chattel mortgage is superior to later mortgage for repairs where mechanic surrenders possession.\nWhere a chattel mortgage for the purchase price of an automobile expressly retains title to the automobile and all improvements made thereon, and stipulates that the giving of possession thereof to the purchaser was not to pass title to him, and the instrument is duly registered, the purchaser during the continuance of the contract may have repairs made that are necessary for its operation, and the seller\u2019s mortgage is superior to a mortgage for repairs given to a mechanic in lieu of his mechanic\u2019s lien which he had lost by surrender of possession of the car.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Oglesby, J., at October Term, 1928, of RowaN.\nAffirmed.\nTbe material facts agreed to by tbe parties necessary for tbe decision of tbe action:\nOn 3 May, 1926, one \u00a5m. Simpson purchased from tbe defendant, Rouzer Motor Company, a second-band Ford coupe automobile and executed a conditional sale agreement to secure tbe balance of tbe purchase price, $325, to be paid in certain installments, which was duly recorded in tbe office of tbe register of deeds for Rowan County, N. 0.\nTbe material language of tbe conditional sale agreement, for tbe consideration of this case: \u201cThat seller . . . has this day sold and delivered, but upon tbe conditions hereinafter recited, to tbe purchaser (\u00a5m. Simpson) one S. H. Coupe, No., Model T. (hereinafter called the \u2018car\u2019) for three hundred seventy-five and no/100 dollars ($375.00), paid or to be paid by the purchaser to the seller.The conditions of this agreement are, that delivery of the car by seller to purchaser does not pass title thereto, but both the car and all additions improvements thereto and the title thereto shall not pass by such delivery, but are and shall remain vested in and be the property of the seller and assigns (and any extension or assignment of said notes shall not waive this or any other condition herein contained) until said notes, or any renewals thereof, evidencing said installments of purchase price, and all interest thereon, are paid in full. . . . Purchaser shall keep the car free from all liens, taxes, charges, and shall at his expense and in his name cause the car to be registered and licensed in compliance with law.\u201d The abbreviations \u201cS. H.\u201d appearing in the conditional sale agreement from William Simpson to Rouzer Motor Company stands for the words \u201csecond-hand,\u201d and the words \u201cModel T\u201d in said agreement refer to a particular type of Ford automobile.\nThe said Rouzer Motor Company duly transferred and endorsed said note and conditional sale agreement to the Commercial Finance Corporation, the defendant, of Salisbury, which now holds the same. That the said automobile described in said conditional sale agreement is the only automobile owned by the said William Simpson on 3 May, 1926, and until the bringing of this action. That William Simpson moved from Salisbury to Winston-Salem during the month of March, 1927, leaving a balance of $210 due on said note and conditional sale agreement. That William Simpson, then living in and a resident of Winston-Salem, on 8- July, 1927, employed the Twin City Motor Company, the plaintiff, at Winston-Salem, to place and did place a, new engine or motor in the automobile described in the said conditional sale agreement to Rouzer Motor Company, and on the same day the said William Simpson executed to said Twin City Motor Company a note for $108,. with interest from 8 July, 1927, (the balance due is $89.15) to cover the price of said new motor or engine and the cost of the labor in installing the same in said chassis, and to secure said note the said William Simpson executed to said Twin City Motor Company a conditional sales note and chattel mortgage. Said conditional sale note and chattel mortgage were duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Forsyth County, N. C., both describing same \u2014 the chattel mortgage\u2014 \u201cOne Ford coupe automobile, motor No. 14860614.\u201d In the conditional sale note the only change is \u201cengine\u201d instead of \u201cmotor.\u201d\nOn 17 November, 1927, defendants sold the coupe to one Homer Hall for $130, and took a chattel mortgage to secure said debt, which was duly recorded. That at the time of said sale $130 was the fair and reasonable market value of said automobile, and $95 tbe fair and reasonable market value of said new engine or motor alone. Tbat wben plaintiff removed tbe old engine from said chassis said old engine was worn out and worthless. Tbat said new engine or motor is separable from said chassis- or body of said automobile and may be removed from said chassis or body without injury to same, which removal could be affected by unfastening certain bolts, nuts, and screws and lifting said engine out.\nThe court below rendered the following judgment: \u201cThis cause coming on to be heard at October Term, 1928, of Rowan Superior Court, before his Honor, John M. Oglesby, judge of the Superior Court, and being heard upon an agreed statement of facts signed by the parties, and the court being of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the facts as set forth in the \u2018agreed statement of facts.\u2019 It is now, on motion of P. D. Carlton, counsel for defendants, ordered and adjudged :\n1. That plaintiff take nothing by its action from the defendants, and that the defendants go hence without day.\n2. That the costs of this action, including the costs incurred by the defendants, be taxed against the plaintiff.\n3. That this action be, and the same is hereby dismissed.\u201d\nThe plaintiff excepted and assigned error to the court below signing the judgment, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nLee Overman Gregory and F. L. Webster for plaintiff.\nJohn Kesler and P. S. Garit\u00f3n for defendants." }, "file_name": "0371-01", "first_page_order": 435, "last_page_order": 439 }