Indiana Truck Corp. v. Hurry Up Broadway Co.

1 S.W.2d 990, 222 Ky. 521, 1928 Ky. LEXIS 202
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedJanuary 10, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 1 S.W.2d 990 (Indiana Truck Corp. v. Hurry Up Broadway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Indiana Truck Corp. v. Hurry Up Broadway Co., 1 S.W.2d 990, 222 Ky. 521, 1928 Ky. LEXIS 202 (Ky. 1928).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Commissioner Hobson

Reversing.

The Indiana Truck Corporation of Kentucky is in the business of selling trucks, and on March 21, 1925, it sold a truck to P. M. Squires and took a mortgage to secure the unpaid purchase money. The mortgage was duly recorded on March 25, 1925. Squires took possession of the truck and used it in his business, and on February 24, 1926, delivered it to the Hurry Up Broadway Company, which furnished new tires and put them on the truck, its bill amounted to $311.20. As soon as the tires *523 were placed on the truck the Hurry Up Broadway 'Company delivered it to Squires, and he continued to use it in his business as before. On August 21,1926, the Hurry Up Broadway Company asserted a lien on the truck by filing a statement in the county clerk’s office as provided by the statute. Squires was unable to pay for the truck or to pay for the repairs. On September 1, 1926, the Hurry Up Broadway Company brought this action seeking to sell the truck for its debt. The Indiana Truck Corporation of Kentucky filed its answer and cross-petition, asserting a lien on the truck under its recorded mortgage for the balance due it, amounting to $3,250, as a prior lien on the property. The circuit court upon these facts gave judgment in favor of the Hurry Up Broadway Company, holding that its lien was superior to the lien of the prior recorded mortgage. The mortgagee appeals.

The case turns on the proper construction of the statute, which is in these words:

“All persons, individuals or corporations in conducting the business of selling, repairing, furnishing accessories or supplies for motor vehicles shall have a lien on such motor vehicle for the' reasonable or agreed charges for repairs, work done, accessories or supplies furnished for or on machines, and for‘storing or keeping said machine, and such persons, individuals or corporations may detain all motor vehicles in their possession oil which work has been done by them until the reasonable or agreed charges therefor have been paid.
“The lien provided for in this act shall not be lost by the removal of such motor vehicle from the garage, shop, or premises of the person, individual or corporation performing labor, repairing, furnishing accessories or supplies therefor; provided, however,' such person, individual or corporation shall assert such lien within six months by filing in the office of the county clerk of said county a statement showing the amount of materials furnished or labor performed on said car and the cost of same. Said statement to be filed in the same manner as the lien of mechanics and materialmen, after the removal of such vehicle, unless the owner thereof shall consent to an additional extension of time as provided for in this act, in which event the lien shall extend for- such *524 a length of time as the parties may agree upon, reduced to writing and signed hy the parties thereto.
“Any motor vehicle remaining in possession of a person, individual or corporation on which repairs have been made, labor performed, accessories or supplies furnished by such person, individual or corporation for moré than thirty days may be sold to pay said charges, but the person, individual or corporation to whom the charges are payable shall first advertise said vehicle for sale six days before the sale is made, in some paper of general circulation in the town, city or county where the materials were furnished or labor performed on such motor vehicle.” Ky. Stats., secs. 2739hl, 2739h2.

Sections 496 and 497, Kentucky Statutes, are as follows :

“No deed or deed of trust or mortgage conveying a legal or equitable title to real or personal estate shall be valid against a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice thereof, or against creditors, until such deed or mortgage shall be acknowledged or proved according to law and lodged for record.” Section 496.
“All bona fide deeds of trust or mortgage shall take effect in the order that the same shall be legally acknowledged or proved and lodged for record.” Section 497.
“The word ‘creditors’ as used herein shall include all creditors irrespective of whether or not they may have acquired a lien .by legal or equitable proceedings or by voluntary conveyance.” Section 496.

Sections 2739hl and 2739h2, Kentucky Statutes, are from an act passed in 1918; sections 496 and 497, above quoted, are from former acts, but the later act, so far as it is’ not inconsistent therewith, must be read in the light of the law thén in force.

“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that not only should the intention of the lawmaker be deduced from a view of the whole statute and of its every material part, but statutes in pari materia should be construed together. This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to *525 the legislative intention, all statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or been repealed, and, so far as still in force, so construed in reference to each other that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction.” 25 R. C. L. p. 1060, sec. 285.

Sections 496, 497, Ky. St., have been the law of the state since the act of 1820. Morehead and Brown’s Statutes, p. 448. The previous acts were put in their present form in the Revised Statutes of 1851 (see chapter 24, sections 11,12), and in the General Statutes adopted in 1873 (chapter 24, sections 10, 11). Thence they came into the Kentucky Statutes without change, until 1916, when the Legislature added to section 496 the last sentence therein. The policy of protecting bona fide mortgages duly recorded is therefore well settled. In giving mechanics and materialmen a lien (Ky. Stats., sec. 2463), the prior recorded mortgage is not affected. The same rule is observed as to materialmen furnishing supplies to a' railroad. Section 2488, Ky. Stats. It is also applied in giving a livery stable or an agister’s lien (section 2500), and in the case of a landlord’s lien (section 2316). It being thus the settled legislative policy to protect the lien of duly recorded mortgages, the act of 1918 cannot be read as inconsistent with the former acts, unless such an intention is in fact expressed. The act expressly provides that the person repairing or furnishing accessories for motor vehicles shall have a lien thereon for the reasonable or agreed charges therefor. It does not provide that this lien shall supersede existing liens, but it does provide that such persons may detain the motor vehicles in their possession until the charges have been paid. The statute gives the persons making repairs the right to “detain all motor vehicles in their possession on which work has been done by them.” Ky. Stats., section 2739hl. But from whom is this detention? Evidently from the person from whom it is received. The power to detain the car cannot naturally mean more, and that this ,is what is meant is shown by the next paragraph providing that a statement may be filed by them in the same manner as mechanics and materialmen.

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

Related

Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota, N.A. v. Commonwealth
345 S.W.3d 800 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2011)
Knott v. Garriott
784 S.W.2d 603 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1989)
Midland-Guardian Co. v. McElroy
563 S.W.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1978)
Corbin Deposit Bank v. King
384 S.W.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1964)
Krumpelman v. Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District
314 S.W.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1958)
Blackard v. City National Bank
142 F. Supp. 753 (D. Alaska, 1956)
Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Netter
253 S.W.2d 260 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1952)
Taylor v. Liddon-White Truck Co.
233 S.W.2d 52 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1950)
American Loan Co. v. See
182 S.W.2d 644 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1944)
Adkins v. Carol Mining Co.
136 S.W.2d 32 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
C. I. T. Corporation v. Studebaker Sales of Ky.
65 S.W.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Milner v. Gibson
61 S.W.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Young v. Hill
57 S.W.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
South v. Truesdale
26 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Hauseman Motor Company v. Napierella
3 S.W.2d 1084 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.W.2d 990, 222 Ky. 521, 1928 Ky. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indiana-truck-corp-v-hurry-up-broadway-co-kyctapphigh-1928.