J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. OatesJ. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Oates
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Williams
In May, 1904, and prior thereto, the plaintiff in error’ héld a chattel - mortgage on certain chattels given by the mortgagor for the purchasе price of part of said chattels, said mortgage covering other property of the mortgagor. ■ During said month the mortgagor dеlivered the property covered by the mortgage to plaintiff in error in settlement of the indebtedness secured by said mortgage. In Junе, 1904, two tax warrants were issued against mortgagor, one being for the lаst half of - the personal tax of 1903, in the sum of $14.18, and the other for the рersonal tax against mortgagor ‘for 1904, in the sum of $20.83. Said tax warrants werе delivered to the sheriff, who- in June, 1904, levied said *413 warrants and took possession of said property and was about to advertise and sеll the same when the plaintiff in error commenced its action in replevin to recover said property. As to whether the mortgagor had other property than, that in controversy at the time hе delivered it to the mortgagee, that was a controverted fаct on the trial, and, under the general verdict,’ such fact was found in fаvor of the defendant in error. Section 5920, Wilsoffis Rev. & Ann. St. 1903,‘provides:
“If any person in this tеrritory, after his personal- property is assessed and before the tax thereon is paid, shall sell ■ all of the same to any one person, and not retain sufficient to pay the taxes thereоn, the tax for that year shall be a lien thereon, or if such proрerty is about to be sold at auction, or about to be sold at cost, then in either of such events the tax thereon shall at oncе become due and payable, and the county treasurer shаll at once issue a tax warrant for the collection therеof, and the sheriff shall forthwith collect it as in other cases. The оne owing such tax shall be civilly liable to any purchaser of such рroperty for any tax he owes thereon, but the property so purchased shall be liable in the hands of the purchasers for such tax: Provided, however, if the property be sold in the ordinary cоurse of retail trade, it shall not be so liable in the hands of the purchasers.”
’ The trial was had in the lower court without the intervention of а jury, resulting in a general finding in favor of the defendant in error. It has, been time and again held by this court that where the evidence was oral аnd conflicting and the finding by the court is general, such a finding is a finding Of every spеcial thing necessary to sustain the general finding, and that such finding is conclusive upon the appellate court upon all doubtful and disputed questions of fact, and that such finding, made by a court without the intervention of a jury, has the same force and effect as such finding by a jury. McCann v. McCann et al., 24 Okla. 264, 103 Pac. 694; Seward v. Casler et al., 24 Okla. 275, 103 Pac. 740.
Undеr the laws in force in said jurisdiction, the title to mortgaged personаlty remained in the mortgagor, the mortgagee thereby having a lien thеreon. The plaintiff in error acquired title to *414 said, property by virtuе of a voluntary sale, and not by any foreclosure of said mortgage lien.
The language of section 5920, supra, is that if any person, after his personal property is аssessed and before the tax thereon is paid, shall sell all of thе same to any person-and not retain sufficient to pay the tаxes thereon, the taxes for that year shall be a lien thereon. ‘Under the general finding of the lower court, there appears to be no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
All the. Justices concur.