delivered the opinion of the Court.
On Oсtober 12, 1922, the Tri-State Motor Sales Company sold one Maxwell car to J. H. Horton for $985. Two hundred and fifty dollars of the consideration was paid in cash, and twelve interest-bearing right and title notes of $62.41 each, payable one a month for twelve months, were executed for the balance.
On October 17, 1922, the Tri-State Motor Sales Company negotiated all of said notes, except the first one, to [the plаintiff, First National Bank.
Said automobile was turned over to Horton, and was being driven by him on the night of January 3, 1923, when onе of defendant’s trains negligently ran over and demolished it.
On the 10th of January, 1923, the claim agent of defendant аpproached Horton for a settlement, was told that he had not paid for the car and to sеe the Motor Sales Company, which he did. The claim agent was led to *389 believe that the purchasе money for the car was owing to the Motor Sales Company. The amount of the damage was agreed upon. The Motor Sales Company and Horton executed a joint release and received a check payable to them jointly. Horton indorsed the check and turned it over to the Motor Sales Company, but it applied no part of the proceeds in payment of the outstanding purchase-money notes. •
Both the Motor Sales Company and Horton are insolvent.
This suit was instituted by the bank to recover from defendant the value of said automobile.
The trial court sustained the defendant’s plea of accord and satisfaction.
Upon apрeal the court of appeals reversed the trial court and entered judgment for the bank. The case was brought to this court by-petition for certiorari filed by the defendant company.
What are the rights of the parties?
It is well settled that either the conditional vendor or vendeеs can prosecute an action for injury to the property by a third party.
Railway Co.
v.
Lumber Co.,
The same rule applies where the relationship is that of mortgagor and mortgagee. 27 Cyc., 1272;
Harris
v.
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.,
supra;
Wilkes
v.
Southern Ry.,
85 S. C., 346,
Also where the relationship is thаt of bailor and bailee. 6 Corpus Juris, 1166.
*390 A recovery by one is a bar to a recovery by tbe other. Railway Co. v. Lumber Co., supra; Harris v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., supra; 6 Corpus Juris, 1166.
Tbe underlying principle is that tbe bailee, vendee, or mortgagor is in rightful рossession of tbe property, and that possession alone is sufficient to support an actiоn for trespass or trespass on tbe case.
The right of tbe conditional vendee to sue authorizes him to compromise and settle, in good faith, so as to preclude a recovery by tbe conditiоnal vendor.
Harris
v.
Seaboard Air Line Ry Co.,
supra;
Chicago, R. I.
&
P. Ry. Co.
v.
Earl,
121 Ark., 514,
Counsel for tbe bank cite
Lacey
v.
Great Northern Railway Co.,
In tbe former case this question was not specifically dealt with, but was disposed of upon other questions. Tbe latter case is not in point and can be distinguished upon several grounds.
Tbe decided weight of authority supports our conclusion upon this question, and, upon reason, would appear to be the better rule. The law favors the settlement of disputes by compromise. In an action of this character the vendee has a сlear right of action, which, ordinarily, can be settled by compromise. The parties should not have to be burdened with the trouble, expense, and delay of a suit when they are in accord as to the amount of damages.
*391 The vendee is not such a trustee as that he cannot settle by compromise without the sanction of the vendor. While a lawyer is, in a sense, a trustee and cannot compromise with respect to the rights of his client, in the absence of express authority, it should be borne in mind that he is acting exсlusively for another by employment and not with respect to any personal right.
On the other hand, the cоnditional vendee is acting, primarily, in his own right, and it is only when he obtains a recovery, by suit or compromise, that he becomes trustee for the vendor as to the surplus after satisfying his own demand.
We are further of the оpinion that the bank, upon ac-, quiring the notes, sustained the same relationship towards the vendee аs that originally occupied by the vendor. It simply acquired the obligations of the ven-dee, secured by the automobile. Jones on Chattel Mortgages (4th Ed.), p. 548.
It is also insisted by the bank that since the vendee only formаlly executed the release and indorsed the check, and actually received no part оf the $700, there was not, in fact, a settlement between the vendee and the defendant so as to prеclude a recovery by the bank.
This contention is not well taken. The vendee was a party to the settlement, executed a release, and received a cheek, which he voluntarily turned over tо the Motor Sales Company, and which could not have been cashed without his indorsement. It was within the pоwer of the vendee to have paid his purchase-money notes, and his negligence in failing to do sо cannot be charged to the defendant.
*392 We are referred to. a case decided by the сourt of appeal's where one of the indorsing payees of a check was held not bound, but that was a case of fraud and is not in point. Here there is no claim that the vendee executed the release and indorsed the check through, fraud. ■
For the reasons indicated above, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and that of the circuit court affirmed.