J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Barney.
54 Okla. 686, 154 P. 674, 1916 OK 84 (1916)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mortgagee, possessing a contractual right to repossess property upon default, does not commit conversion by peaceably taking possession over the mortgagor's mere refusal to consent, provided no actual force is employed. A trial court also errs by retroactively setting aside a valid order for a receiver's sale and excluding evidence of that sale without proper cause.
Facts:
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company (plaintiff) held notes and a mortgage on a threshing outfit owned by W. H. Barney et al. (defendants).
- The mortgage contained a clause granting the mortgagee the right to take possession of the property upon default.
- Brewer, an agent for J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company, approached Barney and requested delivery of the threshing outfit.
- Barney initially refused to voluntarily deliver the outfit, stating he had no right to do so and that it belonged to the company, making all parties equally responsible for its care.
- Brewer asserted his authority to take the machine, stating he could take it whenever he found it if he felt unsafe and insecure.
- Brewer hired Mr. Stewart to move the machine, but Stewart initially declined when Barney reiterated his unwillingness to give it up.
- Brewer subsequently convinced Barney to allow Stewart to proceed, and Stewart then moved the machine to Alva by firing it up and running it in.
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company retained possession of the property for several months, during which some negotiations for settlement occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company filed an action in the district court of Woods County, Oklahoma, against W. H. Barney et al. on notes aggregating $2,412.13 and interest, and to foreclose a mortgage on a threshing outfit.
- The district court issued an order appointing a receiver to take charge of and sell the mortgaged property at public auction.
- The receiver sold the property to J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company for $1,400.
- Defendants filed an answer, asserting an oral agreement for payment, alleging conversion by the plaintiff, and claiming plaintiff failed to protect the property, causing depreciation.
- At trial, the district court excluded evidence regarding the alleged oral agreement to pay notes solely from earnings.
- The district court, of its own motion, made an order setting aside the previous order appointing a receiver, discharged the receiver, and invalidated all his acts.
- The district court excluded evidence regarding the appointment of the receiver and the sale of the property.
- The district court instructed the jury that the defendants were entitled to a credit equal to the property's value when taken by the plaintiff, implying conversion.
- Evidence was introduced on the remaining issues, and the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants.
- Judgment was entered thereon for the defendants.
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company appealed the judgment to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a mortgagee guilty of conversion for peaceably taking possession of mortgaged property, over the mortgagor's mere refusal to consent but without actual force, when the mortgage grants a right of repossession upon default; and did the trial court err by retroactively invalidating a receiver's sale and excluding evidence of it?
Opinions:
Majority - HATCHETT, C.
No, the mortgagee was not guilty of conversion, and the trial court did err. The court determined that the taking of possession under the circumstances, where the mortgage explicitly granted the right to repossess upon default, did not constitute conversion. While the plaintiff did not have the right to take the property by force, the mere refusal of the defendants to consent to the taking was not sufficient to constitute conversion, as actual force was not employed. The court also held that the delay of several months after taking possession before commencing foreclosure proceedings, particularly in light of ongoing settlement negotiations, did not amount to conversion. However, the court suggested that the plaintiff might be liable for damages if the machinery was injured due to negligence during the period of retention, with the measure of damages being the difference in value. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court erred by peremptorily revoking its prior order appointing a receiver, discharging the receiver, setting aside all his acts, and excluding evidence of the receiver’s sale. This action was deemed erroneous because the sale had already occurred under a court order, and without questioning the judge's initial authority to appoint the receiver, it was improper to retroactively nullify the proceedings without cause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of conversion in the context of a mortgagee exercising its contractual right to repossession. It establishes that a mortgagee's peaceable taking of collateral, even against the mortgagor's voiced refusal to consent, does not constitute conversion unless actual force is used. This distinction provides a crucial safeguard for lenders seeking to recover defaulted collateral while preventing self-help actions from escalating into breaches of the peace. The case also underscores the principle of judicial finality, holding that a trial court cannot retroactively nullify a receiver's sale conducted under its own prior order without a valid showing, thus impacting the integrity of court-ordered proceedings.
