Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/300/300mass543.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:30:01+00:00

Document:
ERNEST G. LAWRENSON vs. WORCESTER LUNCH CAR AND CARRIAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
A conditional vendor of a lunch car who warranted to an assignee of the vendee's interest at the time of the assignment and later in a bill of sale that the car was and would remain personal property movable by the assignee "at any time he wished," was not liable to the assignee for alleged breach of such warranty where the car had become part of the real estate on which it was located because of acts of the vendee without knowledge of the vendor before the assignment, and the assignee later lost the car through foreclosure of a mortgage on the real estate given for his benefit and with his approval.
payment of the full purchase price had made a bill of sale to the plaintiff, the car at that time because of acts of the plaintiff and his predecessor in title for years had been affixed to the realty and the title to the land and the car had been acquired by the plaintiff's brother for the plaintiff's benefit.
A seller vouched in to defend proceedings calling in question the purchaser's title was not liable to the purchaser for failure to defend where the defect in the title, if any existed, resulted from the purchaser's acts.
In an action by a buyer of a lunch car against the seller for breach of warranty of title, the issue of the defendant's liability was not as a matter of law concluded in favor of the plaintiff by an adjudication in a previous suit to the effect that two years after the sale the car was part of the realty on which it was located and that the title of a purchaser at a sale in foreclosure of a mortgage of the realty was paramount to the buyer's title.
CONTRACT OR TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated October 22, 1934.
The case was tried before Brogna, J., and in this court was submitted on briefs.
The allegations of the third count of the declaration were in substance "that the defendant . . . by fraudulently representing to the plaintiff that it was the owner of" the lunch car in question "induced the plaintiff to buy the same of the defendant"; that the "said lunch car and equipment were not the property of the defendant . . . but, in fact, was the property of the Lowell Trust Company . . . that the said Lowell Trust Company later was taken over by the commissioner of banks . . . who has since taken the same from the plaintiff."
The buying by "the plaintiff" "of the defendant" was by the bill of sale dated September 9, 1931, mentioned in the opinion. At that time, the title to the property was in the plaintiff's brother, who was acting for him and had taken title on June 12, 1930. The Lowell Trust Company was a mortgagee from the brother under a mortgage deed of that date of the land and the "buildings thereon." The lunch car had been affixed to the realty at least since 1928.
M. J. Cohen, for the plaintiff.
C. A. Warren & N. R. Voorhis, for the defendant.
contained in a bill of sale dated September 9, 1931, of a lunch car purchased from the defendant. The second count alleges the purchase of the lunch car; that the defendant executed the bill of sale described in the first count; that the commissioner of banks in possession of the Lowell Trust Company, claiming title to the car, brought a bill in equity against the plaintiff in the case at bar which resulted adversely to him; that the plaintiff seasonably tendered to the defendant the defence of this bill in equity but that it refused to defend; that at the time the car was sold, it was real estate and not personal property; that the defendant had no title to the lunch car and had no right to sell it as personal property. The third count is for alleged deceit. The case was heard by a jury and the judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the third count. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the other counts, which, on leave reserved, was set aside, a verdict for the defendant being entered. The case comes to this court on a report by the trial judge.
in reduction of the mortgage principal, and this payment was made and the old building demolished. The lunch car was designed and constructed by the defendant to rest on four piers. Cronin constructed these piers and dug a cellar where the car was to be located and also one beneath a cook house that he built in the rear of the car. He put in a cement foundation and, after the car had been set, he filled in the front and both ends with brick. The car was wired for electricity, and water and drain pipes were connected at outlets provided for them underneath the car. At no time did the defendant have knowledge or notice of what was done or being done on the land or of how the car was placed, except that it was designed to and did rest on four piers; nor did the defendant have any knowledge of violation of the provisions of the conditional sale agreement, except those relating to the instalment payments required by it.
all obligations of the lessee under said lease." The plaintiff's brother testified that when he was in Worcester, the defendant's treasurer agreed that upon completion of the payments the defendant would give the plaintiff a bill of sale of the car; and that the treasurer told him that the car "was then and would always remain personal property and could be moved by the plaintiff at any time he wished." The plaintiff completed the payments on the car and received a bill of sale dated September 9, 1931. The plaintiff's brother acted for him in the purchase of the car and thereafter. From September, 1928, until June, 1933, the car was used and the business was carried on continuously by the plaintiff or in his name. His brother conducted all of the plaintiff's correspondence, made all remittances to the defendant, but always in the plaintiff's name, with nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was not acting himself. His brother went to the lunch car regularly and assisted him in every way he could, and the plaintiff relied upon his judgment. The plaintiff became ill in the fall of 1929, and has since been totally incapacitated. After the plaintiff became ill his brother had charge of his business, kept the books of account, had charge of the money, defended the equity suit and prosecuted the action at bar in behalf of the plaintiff.
satisfied with what had been done." Thereafter the plaintiff's brother had all the dealings with the bank. The plaintiff "left it all to" his brother.
In May, 1931, Harrigan, the president of the trust company, as a result of information obtained at his request from the defendant by the plaintiff's brother, wrote to the defendant, on the letter head of the trust company, to the effect that the plaintiff had shown "us" the defendant's letter which stated the amount "he now owes you" on the "lunch wagon," and requesting that the defendant have the insurance policy which covered the car made payable to the trust company "as second mortgagee, coming, of course, after your interests." The defendant complied with this request to the extent of having the policy made payable to the trust company "as its interest may appear." Except for this correspondence the defendant never had any knowledge of the encumbrances on the land, of the interest of the trust company therein or of the relations of the trust company with Cronin or with the plaintiff or his brother.
On June 8, 1933, the commissioner of banks, in possession of the trust company, for breach of the conditions of the mortgage given by the plaintiff's brother, caused entry to be made for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage, took possession of the car and completed the foreclosure by sale on November 23, 1933, to the trust company. On November 27, 1933, the commissioner brought a bill in equity against the plaintiff as more fully appears hereinafter.
It was agreed at the trial that no change had been made in the location of the lunch car and cook house on the land or in the manner in which the lunch car was situated with respect to the land, or to the cook house, since the original installation by Cronin.
general ownership remains in the vendor until the requirements of the contract of sale have been fulfilled. Giligian v. New England Truck Co. 265 Mass. 51, 54. And, apart from any statute, if such a vendee annexes a chattel so that it becomes a part of his realty, the conditional sale agreement will prevent the conditional vendee and any vendee or mortgagee of his, under a mortgage taken subsequently to the annexation, who takes with notice of the agreement, from claiming the chattel as a part of the realty. Southbridge Savings Bank v. Exeter Machine Works, 127 Mass. 542. See Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co. 97 Mass. 279, 283; Bartholomew v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 239; Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 511; Gardner v. Buckley & Scott, Inc. 280 Mass. 106, 111; Titcomb v. Carroll, 287 Mass. 131. It has not been suggested that G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 184, Section 13, has any application. See St. 1929, c. 261; Medford Trust Co. v. Priggen Steel Garage Co. 273 Mass. 349, 353.
an impairment of the defendant's title to the car, constituting a breach of the sale agreement on Cronin's part, the plaintiff, by the assignment, took Cronin's right only, subject to all the equities of the defendant against Cronin. West v. Spaulding, 11 Met. 556. American Bridge Co. of New York v. Boston, 202 Mass. 374. There is nothing in the record to warrant a finding that the trust company, by virtue of its original mortgage, ever asserted any rights in derogation of the defendant's title to the lunch car. As late as May, 1931, it had asked the defendant to have the insurance policy on the car made payable to it "as second mortgagee, coming, of course, after your [the defendant's] interests." See Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co. 97 Mass. 279; Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 511. When this mortgage was foreclosed on June 12, 1930, as more fully appears hereinbefore, the plaintiff's brother, "to help and protect" the plaintiff, bought the Cronin real estate upon which the lunch car stood. This was done by arrangement with the trust company, and in doing so the plaintiff's brother "was looking after the interests of his brother." After this foreclosure and in pursuance of the arrangement made with the trust company, the plaintiff's brother gave the trust company a mortgage of the premises which included the "buildings thereon" and the plaintiff was "fully satisfied with what had been done." It was the foreclosure of this mortgage, followed by the suit in equity, which, it is reasonable to assume, resulted in the bringing of the action at bar.
Lively v. Rice, 150 Mass. 171, 172: The plaintiff "now seeks to found upon his own violation of duty a claim against the defendant. The rules of law do not lead to any such unjust and absurd result." See Gerber v. Berstein, 295 Mass. 132, 137; Gill v. Ferrin, 71 N.H. 421; Kinney v. Millsap, 71 Fed.(2d) 578; Judd v. Seekins, 62 N.Y. 266, 269. Compare Spring v. Tongue, 9 Mass. 28; Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 179, 193, 194; Wiggin v. Atkins, 136 Mass. 292. It follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover on any warranty contained in the bill of sale.
We have grave doubts as to anything being open to the plaintiff upon his assertion of an alleged warranty made by the defendant, at the time the plaintiff took over Cronin's contract and guaranteed the payment thereof, that "said lunch car was then and would always remain personal property and could be moved by the defendant [sic] at any time he wished." The question does not appear to be open upon the pleadings and we doubt if it was raised at the trial. But if we assume that it is before us, the result is not changed. From what has been said there is nothing in the record to show that the car was not treated by all parties as personal property on September 10, 1928, when the statement of the defendant's treasurer is alleged to have been made. The statement is to be so interpreted as to give effect to the intent of the parties, in the light of the circumstances in which it was made. Peck v. Conway, 119 Mass. 546. Lively v. Rice, 150 Mass. 171. Clapp v. Wilder, 176 Mass. 332, 341. A reasonable construction of the alleged statement is that, in so far as the defendant was concerned, the lunch car would remain personal property and that it could be moved by the plaintiff without interference on the defendant's part. To say, in the circumstances, that the defendant promised anything more than this would be to impute to the parties the making of an "absurd and unreasonable contract." Gill v. Ferrin, 71 N.H. 421, 423. If the statement is regarded as one of warranty, there has been no breach.
defendant, by fraudulently representing to the plaintiff that it was the owner of the lunch car, induced him to purchase it. The alleged representation must be taken to be the one just under consideration, contended also to have been a warranty. If taken literally, in the circumstances in which it was made or upon our construction of it, there was no actionable fraud. See Alpine v. Friend Bros. Inc. 244 Mass. 164, 167.
as to such a defect cannot be said to bind the defendant. The defendant ought not to be held responsible for its failure to defend a title that has been impaired, if at all, by the plaintiff's own acts. See Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass. 349, 353; Pitkin v. Leavitt, 13 Vt. 379, 384. Finally, and upon another ground, we think the evidence that was admitted does not go so far as to foreclose the issue of the defendant's liability for breach of warranty of title. It merely adjudges the trust company's title paramount to that of the plaintiff. It neither discloses nor adjudicates the status of the title to the car either on September 10, 1928, when the alleged oral warranty was made, or on September 9, 1931, when the bill of sale was given, and that status was not necessarily involved in the adjudication. See Sawyer v. Woodbury, 7 Gray, 499, 503; Johnson v. Morse, 11 Allen 540; Moore v. Bostwick, 23 Mich. 507; Mason v. Kellogg, 38 Mich. 132, 140; Chestnut v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 149; Hilliker v. Rueger, 219 N.Y. 334; Andrews v. Denison, 16 N.H. 469. Compare Sandler v. Silk, 292 Mass. 493, 498.
[Note 1] The sale in foreclosure of the mortgage was on June 12, 1930, when the plaintiff's brother took title. His mortgage to the trust company bore the same date. -- REPORTER.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.