435 N.E.2d 692 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1980
Defendant-appellant, Odenweller Milling Company, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Williams County, claiming in its sole assignment of error, that:
"The Judgment is contrary to law and to the weight of the evidence."
The plaintiff-appellee, Defiance Production Credit Association, loaned money to defendants Larry and Arlene Hake for the purchase of hogs. As collateral for the loan, the Hakes executed notes, real estate mortgages, and a security agreement wherein plaintiff was given a security interest in the hogs to be purchased. This security interest was perfected by the filing of a financing statement in the Williams County Recorder's Office.
The Hakes orally contracted with various farmers for the boarding of the hogs purchased, and with various feed supply companies for the feeding of the hogs. The appellant was one of these feed suppliers. Under the parties' arrangements, the feed suppliers brought feed to the farms upon which the *186 Hakes' hogs were boarded, filling the feed bins as provided by the boarding farmers. The hogs were, at all time relevant, in the actual possession of these boarding farmers.
Subsequently, the Hakes fell into default of their loan from the plaintiff; plaintiff then filed a five-count complaint seeking a money judgment on the Hakes' notes, foreclosure of their mortgages, and a marshalling of liens upon its collateral, the hogs. The boarding farmers and the feed suppliers were brought into the action as party-defendants by the plaintiff's original complaint, its amended complaint, and by a motion to intervene by defendant Ney Co-Operative Grain Company.
Following the filing of various counterclaims and cross-claims by these defendants, and responses thereto, the plaintiff filed a "motion for separate trials" seeking a separate hearing and adjudication of the parties' respective rights and priorities in the subject hogs. The motion was granted, and a separate hearing was held on these issues on July 17, 1978. The trial court's decision and judgment entry provide the subject matter of this appeal. (The final judgment entry resolved the case as to all parties; however, only appellant has appealed.)
The defendant boarding farmers and the defendant feed suppliers all claimed, in the trial court, a statutory lien upon the subject hogs pursuant to R. C.
"Any person who feeds or boards an animal under contract with the owner shall have a lien on such animal to secure payment for food and board furnished."
The defendants further claimed that their alleged statutory lien upon the subject hogs was entitled to a priority of payment over the security interest of the plaintiff by virtue of R. C.
"When a person in the ordinary course of his business furnishes services or materials with respect to goods subject to a security interest, a lien upon goods in the possession of such person given by statute or rule of law for such materials or services takes priority over a perfected security interest unless the lien is statutory and the statute expressly provides otherwise."
The trial court held, in its decision, that R. C.
We disagree with the trial court's initial conclusion of law concerning R. C.
Under the common law, no lien in favor of a person who fed or cared for another person's animal was recognized. Legislation has been enacted in most states, however (in Ohio, R. C.
Construing the statutory predecessors to R. C.
Similarly, in the present language of R. C.
"* * * [T]he intention of the legislature was, in enacting *188 them, to give to the person furnishing such food and care a lien upon the animal * * * with the incidents of a lien at common law in analogous cases. * * *" Seebaum v. Handy, supra, at 566.
See, also, Ahlswede v. Schoneveld (1971),
The trial court reached a different conclusion; and, to the extent that its judgment was based upon its conclusion that the feed suppliers had a valid lien upon the subject hogs under R. C.
It has been generally recognized that UCC 9-310 (R. C.
The appellant claims that once the subject hogs were sold, and the proceeds therefrom escrowed pending the outcome of this litigation, the question of possession became moot, and that it was, therefore, entitled to the proceeds pursuant to R. C.
Finding appellant's contentions herein to be without merit, and on the basis of our foregoing conclusions of law, we find the appellant's sole assignment of error not well taken. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Williams County is affirmed for the reasons stated.
Judgment affirmed.
CONNORS and WILEY, JJ., concur.
WILEY, J., retired, of the Sixth Appellate District, was assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Constitution. *190