Court Opinion

ID: 6544380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:18:23.485859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:55.569079
License: Public Domain

Wood, J., (after stating the facts.) The doctrine of subrogation has no application here. The staves involved in the replevin suit had been purchased by Blanks from the French Oak Stave Co. He had taken possession of same, through his employees, the defendants in that suit. It was Blank’s tille and right to possession that was determined in that suit, for, confessedly, the defendants had no title and possession of their own. Upon the execution of the bond in replevin, Blanks retained the possession of the staves, and converted them to his own use, making it impossible for, any of the defendants in the suit in replevin to satisfy the judgment for a return of the staves. By so doing he chose rather to pay off the Newton judgment than to return the staves. But his plea was that it was necessary for him to do this in order to protect his interest in the staves and the interest of his immediate vendor, the French Oak Stave Co. Very well, then, if he has any rights of subrogation at all, it must be the right of the French Oak Stave Co. against Matthews. But the French Oak Stave Co. was not a party to the suit in replevin. Its rights against Matthews for a failure of title in the staves was not and could not have been determined in that suit. Now, the proof in this case tends strongly to show that' at the time the judgment in replevin was rendered, and at the time Blanks acquired his interest in same, the French Oak Stave Co. was indebted to Matthews in a large sum for staves, including the staves in controversy in the replevin suit. So that, in any suit that may have been brought against him by his immediate vendee, the French Oak Stave Co., for a breach of his warranty of title to the staves replevied by Newton, he might have shown that the French Oak Co. was indebted to him in an equal or greater amount than any sum that might have been claimed by the French Oak Stave Co. against him for the failure of title to these particular staves. The principle announced in Boyd v. Whitfield, 19 Ark. 447, that a purchaser who loses a chattel by the interposition of one who has a paramount title must look for redress to his immediate vendor, applies here. Blanks acquired only the rights of the French Oak Stave Co. in the staves. He had no right by this proceeding to shut off any defenses which Matthews had against his immediate vendee, to whom alone he was responsible for a breach of warranty. This ends the ease, and renders it unnecessary to discuss other interesting questions raised by counsel. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dissolve the injunction, and to dismiss the complaint for want of equity.