Steen v. Grace

257 F.2d 297
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 1958
Docket12204_1
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 257 F.2d 297 (Steen v. Grace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steen v. Grace, 257 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1958).

Opinion

257 F.2d 297

In the Matter of Charles J. STEEN, Individually and d/b/a Steen Tire Distributors, et al., Bankrupt.
James TALCOTT, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Gerald P. GRACE, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellee.

No. 12204.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

July 8, 1958.

Rehearing Denied August 19, 1958.

James R. Frankel, John P. McGoorty, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Francis L. Zimmermann, Kirby H. Wells, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before FINNEGAN, SCHNACKENBERG and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges.

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a reclamation proceeding, in bankruptcy, commenced by James Talcott, Inc., transferee of an installment note and conditional sale contract, signed by the bankrupt Charles J. Steen, covering 28 auto tire products in molds sold by The Grimes Company, a Texas manufacturer to Steen. Talcott sought possession of these molds from James P. Grace, the Trustee in Bankruptcy who, by his answer, admitted execution of the contract but denied that title had been reserved to Grimes, the vendor or Talcott, as assignee. After a hearing the Referee in Bankruptcy made findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissed Talcott's petition for reclamation, with prejudice. The Referee found for the Trustee on the ground that under Texas statutory1 provisions 16 Vernon's Annot.Civil Stats., c. 6, art. 5489-5490) "the reservation of title to chattels as security in a conditional sales contract is void as against the vendee's creditors unless the said instrument so executed is forthwith recorded in the county where the property is then situated." "That by reason of the non-recordation of said conditional sale contract in Dallas County, Texas, the reservation of title provided for in said contract is void." The district judge overruled Talcott's petition for review of the Referee's findings, affirmed his order, entered June 27, 1957, and this appeal followed. The district court ruled correctly and for that reason the salient facts can be adapted from the Referee's findings. In re Garden City Brewery, 7 Cir., 1954, 208 F.2d 377.

Charles Steen did business as Steen Tire Distributors, Factory Outlet Tire Co. and Tire Jobbers Company in Chicago, Illinois, and was adjudicated a bankrupt on January 31, 1957. Grimes Company, located in Dallas, Texas, manufactures auto tire production molds. Steen paid $1602 to Grimes August 27, 1956, against a total time purchase price of $6683.64 for 28 molds produced by the seller at its Dallas factory. Shortly after September 5, 1956 Steen in Chicago received, by mail, from Grimes in Dallas four copies of a conditional sale contract (See Appendix "A" to this opinion) and an installment promissory note for $5081.61, representing the balance on the purchase price. All of these documents were unsigned, dated September 5, 1956 and sent Steen for his signature. He signed all these papers, mailed them back to Grimes in Dallas, and, the latter in turn, posted a copy of the contract, signed "accepted" by Grimes, to Steen in Chicago. Grimes sold the Steen note and conditional sale contract for value, on October 2, 1956, to James Talcott, Inc., petitioner here, which is a New York corporation engaged in commercial financing, and having a Chicago office.

The contract and note (See Appendix "A") were printed forms prepared by Talcott and described as the property sold the 28 molds, each identified in the contract dated September 5, 1956, by model and serial number. It is expressly provided, under the terms of the contract, that the molds were "to be located and kept for use at" Steen's Chicago place of business; title and ownership of the molds to remain in Grimes, its successors or assigns, until payment of the purchase price and if Steen defaulted, or in the event of his bankruptcy, then Grimes could accelerate the maturity date of the purchase price balance and repossess the molds.

The subject matter of this contract, i. e., the 28 molds were in actual existence on or about September 5, 1956 and were situated in Dallas. There they remained until Grimes delivered them to a motor truck carrier, in four separate groups over a period of several weeks, for transportation to Steen at Chicago. On October 12, 1956, the first shipment arrived in Chicago and the last shipment reached Steen sometime between October 29, 1956 and November 2, 1956. The contract contained no provision for the delivery of these molds.

By its terms, the note was payable to the order of "The Grimes Company, Dallas, Texas, at 11th floor, 225 Fourth Avenue, New York 3, N. Y., or at such other place as the holder * * * may from time to time appoint * * *." There is no evidence that any place other than New York was appointed.

The conditional sale contract was recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds, Cook County, Illinois on October 15, 1956, roughly two weeks after Talcott became the assignee of this contract. No recordation of the contract was made in Dallas County, Texas. Steen defaulted on the installment due December 10, 1956 and was given an extension to January 10, 1957. Because of this default, coupled with Talcott's petition, the entire balance of the purchase price, $4209.70 as of January 31, 1957 became due and payable to Talcott.

The Trustee never had actual custody, possession or control of the molds. After Steen's bankruptcy Grimes delivered a letter, dated February 1, 1957, to Steen demanding that he surrender possession of the molds to a Grimes' nominee, C. & S. Tire Company, Chicago, and Steen complied. The Referee, at this point, also found "That Grimes repossessed said molds for the benefit of Talcott to the extent that Talcott was then the owner and holder of the conditional sales contract and note and that Grimes' interest was as guarantor, even though there was no direct evidence that Talcott at that time knew about or authorized said repossession by Grimes."

The main question is which law is to prevail — Illinois or Texas recording laws. When he was ruling on the Referee's findings, the district judge observed: "Although this Court may have taken a view opposite to that of the Illinois courts on the issue, it is bound by Illinois decisions and therefore must affirm the findings and order of the Referee." Neither the district judge nor referee cited any Illinois authorities and on appeal Talcott places heavy reliance on George v. Haas, 1924, 311 Ill. 382, 143 N.E. 54, while the Trustee rests his case, primarily, on Harrison v. State Bank of Hull, 1956, 11 Ill.App.2d 471, 138 N.E.2d 41.

Of course it is undisputed that these tire molds were in Dallas, Texas at the time when Steen signed the contract and note and when Grimes wrote "accepted" on that printed agreement. The conditional sale contract is a device for protecting creditors whose lien flows with the chattel.

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

Related

Brown v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp.
331 F.2d 246 (Seventh Circuit, 1964)
Brown v. Universal
331 F.2d 246 (Seventh Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 F.2d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steen-v-grace-ca7-1958.