In Re Willys-Detroit, Inc.

284 N.W. 609, 287 Mich. 689
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 9, 1939
DocketDocket No. 89, Calendar No. 40,348.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 N.W. 609 (In Re Willys-Detroit, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Willys-Detroit, Inc., 284 N.W. 609, 287 Mich. 689 (Mich. 1939).

Opinion

The record in this case contains the following stipulation as to the facts involved in the controversy:

"The following facts are stipulated by C. I. T. Corporation, reclamation petitioner, and the temporary receiver:

"C. I. T. Corporation, the reclamation petitioner, is engaged in financing automobile paper. Willys-Detroit, Inc., was a distributor of Willys automobiles. Willys-Overland, Inc., is the manufacturer.

"An order previously entered herein disposed of all automobiles except 14 covered by trust receipt transactions.

"Of such transactions, one Willys 1938 pick-up, Serial No. 79560, Motor No. 79777, was not in the possession of the distributor at the time the temporary receiver was appointed, August 16, 1938, so the decision on the reclamation petition shall not apply thereto.

"The 13 cars covered by trust receipts were released by this court to petitioner upon filing its bond in the amount of $3,000, conditioned upon petitioner paying to the temporary receiver or his successors and assigns the amounts of any claims and liens that may be adjudged to be superior to, or have priority over, petitioner's rights therein.

"There are creditors who extended credit to the distributor, after the execution of the trust receipts, the amounts of which are to be determined by the court from claims filed by said creditors, and allowed by this court after notice to petitioner, and petitioner shall have an opportunity to object to allowance of any claim so filed. If such creditors are entitled to priority over petitioner, such prior claims shall be satisfied from the bond which was substituted in lieu of the cars.

"The cars came into the distributor's possession in this manner: *Page 691

"The distributor ordered the cars from the manufacturer which made out its invoices to the distributor and attached them to bills of sale to petitioner, executed in the following form:

" 'Sold by Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., Toledo, Ohio, To C. I. T. Corporation

" 'Know all men by these presents, that the undersigned for valuable consideration, does hereby grant, sell, transfer, and deliver unto C. I. T. Corporation (grantee) the following goods and chattels described below: (describing cars)

" 'To have and to hold all and singular the said goods and chattels to said grantee, its successors and assigns. The undersigned covenants with said grantee that undersigned is the lawful owner of said chattels; that they are free from all incumbrances; that the undersigned has a good right to sell the same; that undersigned will warrant and defend same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons.

" 'In witness whereof, the undersigned has hereunto set its hand and seal this 15th day of Oct. 1937.

" 'WILLYS-OVERLAND MOTORS, INC. By: H.C. KRUSE.'

"Petitioner prepared time drafts attached to trust receipts in the form of exhibits 'J' to 'U' inclusive, filed as a part of the reclamation petition; the time drafts are payable to petitioner in the full amount of the invoices, drawn on the distributor, bear the typewritten signature of the manufacturer, as shipper, and have the acceptance of the distributor indorsed on the face thereof; and the trust receipts are signed by the distributor.

"Petitioner delivered its check for the full amount of the invoice prices to the manufacturer and received from the manufacturer bills of sale with invoices attached. It received from the distributor the signed trust receipts and accepted time drafts. Pursuant to this arrangement the distributor received the cars to hold in accordance with the provisions of the trust receipts. This 'floor plan accommodation' or trust receipt type of transaction has been carried out between the parties since November 17, 1936. *Page 692

"None of the instruments in question were filed with the register of deeds for Wayne county, Michigan, the place of residence of the distributor, and the place where said chattels were kept.

"The only retail sales by the distributor were separately financed by petitioner under written contracts between the distributor and the purchaser, and such contracts were simultaneously assigned in writing to petitioner by the distributor.

"In no case of sales by the distributor at wholesale to dealers was the written consent of petitioner demanded or received. Such sales were promptly reported and the proceeds accounted for by the distributor to petitioner, with the exception of the Willys pick-up heretofore referred to. Disposition of that car appears to have been made within a few days prior to the receiver's appointment.

"Upon the appointment of a temporary receiver, C. I. T. Corporation filed this reclamation petition.

"The sole question raised by the petition and answer is whether or not these transactions constitute security in the nature of a chattel mortgage and are void as to subsequent creditors under our recording acts, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13424, as amended (Stat. Ann. § 26.929)."

The following is a copy of the trust receipt referred to in the stipulated facts as exhibits 'J' to 'U,' inclusive:

"Received from C. I. T. Corporation (hereinafter termed C. I. T.) each of the chattels described on the reverse hereof, complete with all standard attachments and equipment, in consideration whereof we agree, at our expense, to hold said chattels, including any substituted parts, in trust for C. I. T. as its property, and agree to return the same on demand in good order and unused but with liberty to us to exhibit and, the written consent of C. I. T. having first been obtained, to sell the same for its account for cash not less than, as to each chattel, the minimum *Page 693 sale price (the value thereof) set forth as to the respective chattel on the reverse hereof, and we further agree in the case of such sale to hold in trust for C. I. T. the proceeds separate from our funds and immediately hand such proceeds to C. I. T. without expense or cost to C. I. T. C. I. T. may at any time cancel this trust and repossess itself of said chattels or the proceeds thereof.

"We further agree to keep a separate account of all chattels delivered to us under this or any like receipt and of the proceeds thereof when sold, to report any sale to C. I. T. immediately after the same is made, and to furnish to it on demand a true and complete report for the preceding month. We will also permit C. I. T., or its duly accredited representatives, to examine our books and the chattels in our possession at all reasonable times during business hours.

"Unless we have arranged with C. I. T. ourselves to provide insurance, C. I. T. shall, during the entire time said chattels are held hereunder, keep same insured against loss by fire and theft, and in the event of our failure to redeliver the same on demand we shall, until redelivery thereof, pay as damages for detention for each month or portion thereof after demand one per cent. of said sale price.

"We further agree to pay all taxes, costs, charges, expenses and disbursements, including a reasonable attorney's fee (15 per cent. of sale price of said chattels, if permitted by law) should C. I. T. find it necessary to protect its property in same by legal proceedings involving the employment of an attorney at law, and that the waiver of any default shall not operate as a waiver of subsequent defaults, but all rights hereunder shall continue notwithstanding any one or more waivers. We acknowledge receipt of a true copy of this agreement, which shall be construed according to the laws of the State of New York.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co.
454 P.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1969)
Pioneer Finance Co. v. Dart National Bank
113 N.W.2d 775 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1962)
Daas v. Contract Purchase Corp.
28 N.W.2d 226 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 N.W. 609, 287 Mich. 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-willys-detroit-inc-mich-1939.