Title: Emporia Wholesale Coffee Co. v. Rehrig
Citation: 173 Kan. 841, 252 P.2d 590
Docket Number: 38,808
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 1953

173 Kan. 841 (1953)
252 P.2d 590
THE EMPORIA WHOLESALE COFFEE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
WALTER REHRIG and FRANCES JEAN PETERSON, Appellees.
No. 38,808

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 24, 1953.
Owen S. Samuel, and Owen Samuel, Jr., both of Emporia, were on the briefs for the appellant.
Alex Hotchkiss, of Lyndon, was on the briefs for the appellees.
*842 The opinion of the court was delivered by
WEDELL, J.:
This was an action by the Emporia Wholesale Coffee Company, a corporation, to recover a balance due for equipment sold and delivered to the defendant, Harry Peterson, for the operation of a restaurant business and to have its claim declared a prior lien thereon. Plaintiff recovered a money judgment for the balance due but it was held its lien was inferior to that of the defendant, Walter Rehrig. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.
Appellees are the defendants Walter Rehrig and Frances Jean Peterson, the former wife of Harry Peterson. We shall continue to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendants and by name where necessary to distinguish between the defendants. We need not detail the lengthy pleadings. The issues therein joined readily may be gleaned from the following general statement and the findings made by the trial court:
The defendant, Rehrig, made a loan to the defendant, Peterson, with which to buy restaurant equipment and fixtures from Marcel Vigneron and to purchase additional equipment therefor. Peterson made and delivered a note and chattel mortgage to Rehrig with the intention that the mortgage should cover the additional equipment to be purchased immediately. It was later discovered that mortgage failed to contain a description of the after acquired equipment. In Rehrig's cross petition he sought reformation of his mortgage to include the additional equipment which was purchased from the plaintiff. After Rehrig obtained his chattel mortgage from Peterson and his wife Peterson purchased the additional equipment from plaintiff. Plaintiff relies on an instrument it obtained from Peterson some time after delivery of the equipment to, and use of it by, Peterson, contending it was a purchase-money mortgage and constituted a lien prior and superior to that obtained by Rehrig. Plaintiff's instrument was not signed by Peterson's wife. The equipment was claimed by her as exempt property. She had obtained title thereto in a divorce and alimony action. Other important details of the transactions are contained in the trial court's findings of fact.
The district court tried the action without a jury and made unusually extensive findings of fact upon which its conclusions of law were based. In view of these findings it would constitute useless duplication to narrate the facts in addition to setting forth the detailed findings. Objections to findings, however, will be noted later. *843 The findings of fact and conclusions of law are appended hereto and made a part hereof.
The trial court's memorandum opinion indicates plaintiff's principal contentions in support of its motion for a new trial were the court erred in concluding (1) title to plaintiff's property had passed to Peterson (2) plaintiff's mortgage was not a purchase-money mortgage and (3) that the articles sold were exempt property. Plaintiff, however, also argues here the court erred in other respects. We shall treat all of plaintiff's contentions.
We turn first to the facts upon which the judgment of the trial court was based. The court's memorandum opinion discloses plaintiff's motion to modify the findings of fact and conclusions of law was not filed until after a hearing had been had on at least a part of plaintiff's motion for a new trial. A hearing on a motion attacking findings of fact by a court or jury should be had before the motion for a new trial is presented. Only in this manner can the wrong done, if any, in such findings be remedied and a new trial avoided. It is only in the event the trial court fails to make the corrections, or to supply an omission therein, that ground for a new trial exists as to that particular matter. (Shuler v. Lashhorn, 67 Kan. 694, 701, 74 Pac. 264.) The trial court, however, did consider the motion attacking both findings of fact and conclusions of law. It stated:
Studious consideration of the record does not justify a reversal of the last quoted ruling. The question remaining, therefore, is whether the findings made support the court's conclusions of law. We think they do.
Plaintiff's contention title to the articles it sold did not pass to Peterson is untenable. In its original petition plaintiff chose the theory on which it claimed a lien. It expressly alleged it relied on a chattel mortgage it had obtained from Peterson. Under that theory title had passed to Peterson. Otherwise he could not have executed a valid mortgage on the property. The filing of such a petition constituted an election of plaintiff's remedy. (Plow Co. v. Rodgers, 53 Kan. 743, 749, 37 Pac. 111.) An election of a specific theory for relief operates as a bar to the subsequent adoption of a *844 different and wholly inconsistent theory. (Railway Co. v. Henrie, 63 Kan. 330, 334, 65 Pac. 665.) Plaintiff having chosen where it would stand could not thereafter change its position by adopting the wholly inconsistent theory it had retained title until payment. (Hamilton v. McGinnis, 119 Kan. 719, 722, 241 Pac. 690.) Plaintiff's contention it retained title is barred for another reason. Its conduct was inconsistent with its claim this was a sale for cash on delivery and that title, therefore, remained in it until payment. (Findings 7 to 13, incl.) In Grain Co. v. Harbour, 89 Kan. 824, 133 Pac. 565, this court quoted with approval from Williston on Sales, as follows:
In Rehrig's cross petition he sought reformation of his chattel mortgage to include the property to be purchased by Peterson from plaintiff. In the light of the evidence Rehrig's mortgage was properly reformed. (See particularly finding 5.)
Plaintiff's mortgage did not constitute a purchase-money mortgage. The general rule seems to be well settled that a mortgage on land executed to secure the purchase money by a purchaser of the land contemporaneously with the acquisition of the legal title thereto, or afterward, but as a part of the same transaction, is a purchase-money mortgage. The deed and mortgage need not be executed at the same moment, or even on the same day, to make them contemporaneous, within the meaning of this rule, provided they are parts of one continuous transaction, and so intended to be. (36 Am. Jur., Mortgages, § 15.) To the same effect is 59 C.J.S., Mortgages, § 231b. Here the evidence failed to disclose such a transaction. (See findings 7 to 13, incl.)
Did the articles purchased from plaintiff constitute "tools and implements" for a restaurant business within the contemplation of G.S. 1949, 60-3504, Eighth? At the time of their purchase Peterson was the head of a family and was engaged in the restaurant business. It is not contended the articles purchased were not necessary for the operation of the restaurant. Without them Peterson could not properly have operated the business. This was the theory on which plaintiff sold them to Peterson. We think they are reasonably within the contemplation of the statute and constitute *845 exempt property. (Reeves v. Bascue, 76 Kan. 333, 91 Pac. 77; Saunders v. Graff, 103 Kan. 261, 262, 173 Pac. 413; Federal Agency Investment Co. v. Baker, 122 Kan. 460, 252 Pac. 262.) "Tools and implements" are not to be confined to such implements only as are used by the hand of one man. (Jenkins v. McNall, 27 Kan. 532, 533.) The fact the property may not be used exclusively by the owner in person but also by his employees does not extinguish its exempt character. (Bliss v. Vedder, 34 Kan. 57.) Plaintiff leans heavily on the case of Williams v. Vincent, 70 Kan. 595, 79 Pac. 121, in which it was held a bowling alley was not exempt. We think under the more liberal modern interpretation of exemption laws it cannot well be said that ovens and the other equipment here involved, conceded to be essential to the proper operation of a restaurant business, and which were in constant use by the owner were nonexempt property.
A mortgage of exempt personal property whether owned by the husband or wife or by both of them is invalid without their joint consent and unless executed by both of them. (G.S. 1949, 58-312.) Here the wife's consent was lacking. Of course, had plaintiff's mortgage been a purchase-money mortgage the wife's consent would not have been required. (Boggs v. Kelly, 76 Kan. 9, 90 Pac. 765.)
Counsel for plaintiff vigorously contend it should have been granted a prior lien by reason of the overall equities involved. Their contention has received our careful consideration. However, in view of the discriminating findings of fact which, as previously indicated, are binding on this court, we would not be justified in reversing the judgment.
Although it is conceded the trial court's order pertaining to a division of the costs is not assigned as error counsel for plaintiff contend costs ordinarily follow the judgment. It is, therefore, argued plaintiff should be charged with no portion of the costs. The trouble with the contention is this judgment is not single but multiple in character. It is true plaintiff obtained a money judgment for the balance due it from Peterson. The principal issue, however, was not whether plaintiff was entitled to that judgment but rather whether its lien was prior to that of Rehrig. A judgment was also rendered in favor of the defendant, Frances Jean Peterson. On the last two issues judgment went against plaintiff. We would not be justified in disturbing the judgment pertaining to a division of the costs.
The judgment is affirmed.
*846 "FINDINGS OF FACT
"I
"II
"III
"IV
"V
"VI
"VII
*848 "VIII
"IX
"X
"XI
"XII
"XIII
"XIV
*850 "XV
"XVI
"XVII
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"I
"II
"III
"IV
*851 "V
"VI
"VII
"VIII