Confronting us is a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule No. 1.08(a)(3) and (d), 42 V.A.M.S., requiring the “points relied on” to show what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and requiring those points to state briefly and concisely why the court was wrong. We are cited to White v. Nelson, Mo.App.,
This is an action in replevin by Mack Motor Truck Corporation against John Wolfe, d/b/a Wolfe Implement 'Company, et al., for possession of a motor truck. The pleadings are not in question. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury on a stipulation of facts supplemented by undisputed evidence.
These facts are of relevanсe. On January 18, 1954, the Truck Corporation at Tampa, Florida, by conditional sales contract, conveyed to James H. Alvis, a Florida resident, a Mack truck. The contract secured the sum of $4,251.65 to the Truck Corporation. Subsequently, on April 14, a transfer agreement was entered between James H. Alvis, E. Crawford Jones, and the Truck Corporation, whereby Jones, a Florida resident, purchased the truck for $4,410.41 and assumed all covenants of Alvis embraced in the original contract. The original contract and the transfer agreement shortly thereafter were duly *699 Tecorded in the office of the Motor Vehicle ■Commission of the State of Florida and ■the lien created by the contract and the transfer agreement was endorsed on the certificate of title issued to Jones.
Later, on May 26, Jones took the truck to the Wolfe-Moody Implement Company at Palmyra, Missouri, where repairs requiring labor and parts were made at his instance. No claim is made that Jones ■notified. Wolfe-Moody Implement Company ■of the existencе of the contract and transfer agreement and none is made that the latter had any actual notice from any source. Nor is there any claim that the'se instruments had been recorded in Missouri ,as provided by Missouri law relating to •conditional sales contracts. Section 428.-100, V.A.M.S.
Shortly after delivery of the truck for repairs, Wolfe-Moody Implemеnt Company assigned all of its property to John Wolfe, R/b/a Wolfe Implement Company, et al., the present appellants. Subsequently, on July 14, Jones defaulted on the payments •due under the contract and transfer agreement and reconveyed the truck to the Truck Corporation at its request.
On July 28, the Truck Corporation notified Wolfe Implеment Company that it held a conditional sales contract and transfer agreement against the truck and demanded immediate possession of it. The Implement Company asserted a right to retain possession of the truck under a common-law artisan’s lien for repairs and storage and refused to relinquish possession unless Jones or the Truck Cоrporation made full payment of its charges. The Truck Corporation filed a replevin suit, made bond, and took possession of the truck.
On these facts, the trial court ruled that the Truck Corporation’s contract and transfer agreement, recorded in Florida prior to the repairs, but not in Missouri, gave rise to a lien which took precеdence over the artisan’s lien the Implement Company asserted against the truck. Judgment .was rendered for the plaintiff, Truck Corporation, on its petition to replevy the truck and against the Implement Company on its counterclaim for judgment for the amount of repairs and storage and for the return of the truck to be held by it until full payment was madе. With all of the facts ■ conceded, the ruling of the trial court presents for our decision only the legal question of priority.
In 1890 Judge Ellison, writing for the Kansas City Court of Appeals, in Kirtley v. Morris,
“The artisan’s lien is supported on the theory that the value of the property has been enhanced by the labor and skill of the workman which has been put upon it, at least at the implied request of the owner. If an article of property left with the mortgagor becomes out of repair or unfit for the uses and purposes for which the mortgagor retains it, it may well be supposed to be within the contemplation of the parties that it will be repaired. And it has always been, and is now, well understood that people take such articles of property for repair to those who are engaged in such business, and who, from education and experience, are skilled in the business, and it is, therefore, quite a reasonable and natural implication that the mortgagee should contemplate this when he accepts his security, and that he should be held by the transaction itself to consent thereto. It is thus that the artisan rests secure in the certainty and validity of his lien.” Stone v. Kelley, supra,
Our research does not disclose any criticism of the Kirtley case, or other cases *700 cited, by any of our appellate courts. While outstate аuthorities are conflicting, an examination of them reveals that the Kirtley case and its prototypes are by no means unique. Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Vol. 7A, Secs. 5162-5163; 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 746 b, p. 891; Idem., § 754 b, pp. 901-904; 14 C.J.S. Chattel Mortgages § 300, p. 939; 10 Am.Jur., Chattel Mortgages, § 215, p. 857; Idem., § 218, p. 859; 24 Am.Jur., Garages, Parking Stations, and Liveries, §§ 50-51, pp. 504-505 ; 33 Am.Jur., Liens, § 33, p. 436.
Nevertheless, the Truck Corporation contends that the enactment in 1915 of Sections 430.010-430.050, V.A.M.S., destroys the effect and force of these decisions. Section 430.020 provides that “every person who furnishes labor or material on any vehicle, part or equipment thereof, who shall obtain a written memorandum of the work or material furnished, or to be furnished, signed by the owner of such vehicle, part or equipment thereof, shall have a lien for the amount of such work or material as is ordered or stated in such written memorandum.” Enforcement of this lien is provided for by Section 430.050. Section 430.040 provides that “such lien shall not take precedence over or be superior to any prior lien on said property, created by any chattel mortgage on the same, duly filed or recorded in accordance with the laws of this state, without the written consent of the mortgagee or the legal holder of said chattel mortgage.” We cannot agree with this contention.
These statutes did not abrogate the artisan’s common-law lien for repairs. Except for the contrary ruling in Butterworth v. Soltz,
We are not required to decide whether the Kirtley, Stone, Lazarus, and Birmingham cases remain in such force and effect, despite Sections 430.010-430.050, V.A.M.S., creating the statutory lien, that an artisan’s common-law lien for repairs is still to be granted priority over a chattel mortgage “duly filed or recorded in accordance with the laws of this state.” We deal here with a Florida conditional sales contract, never filed or recorded in this state. The meaning оf those decisions was that an artisan’s common-law lien took priority over all earlier mortgages recorded in this state, or elsewhere, and by analogy, over all conditional sales contracts occupying the same status. The only limitation on priority of the statutory lien was that it should not take precedence over a chattel mortgage and, by analogy, a conditional sales contract, “duly filed or recorded in accordance with the laws of this state.” This is the extent to which the General Assembly chose to go. It went no further.
The General Assembly must be presumed to have been aware of the state of the common law relating to the priority
*701
of a Missouri artisan’s common-law lien over all recorded Missouri chattel mortgages, as declared by the Kirtley case and others, when it enacted Sections 430.010-430.050, V.A.M.S., creating the statutory lien. For when a court of last resort has declared the law, the General Assembly is presumed to be aware of that declaration when it adopts an enactment on the same subject. Jacoby v. Missouri Valley Drainage Dist. of Holt County,
The Truck Corporation advances decisions ruling that an outstate conditional sales contract or chattel mortgage, duly recorded in aсcordance with the laws of the foreign state, although not recorded in this state, takes priority over the rights of innocent purchasers in this state. Jerome P. Parker-Harris Co. v. Stephens,
We believe that none of these cases is in point. In each there was a total absence of any circumstance or fact authorizing any inference of implied consent of the mortgagee to the sale of the chattel to an innocent purchaser, or that the chattel should stand good for the tort of the mort *702 gagor, or that the mortgagor should have a right to subject the chattel to a carrier’s lien for freight. The reasons said to authorize the priority of an artisan’s common-law lien over a chattel mortgаge in the Kirtley, Stone, Lazarus, and Birmingham cases simply do not exist in the cases the Truck Corporation cites.
Similar to the reasoning which denies the relevance of the decisions just discussed is that which applies in agisters’ lien cases for the keeping and feeding of livestock. Such a lien is inferior to a prior recorded chattel mortgagе because there is no ground upon which to assume
implied consent
by the mortgagee that the mortgagor shall deliver the livestock to others for keep and feeding. On the contrary, the implication always has been that the mortgagor shall himself care for and feed the livestock and not commit these chores to others. Stone v. Kelley, supra,
We hold that the Implement Company is entitled to an artisan’s common-law lien on the truck for the repairs made at the instance of E. Crawford Jones, the conditional vendee. The parties agreed in the tidal court, and agree here, that the reasonable value of those repairs was $404.87, and the lien will be for that amount.
Our ruling so far has dealt only with an artisan’s common-law lien for repairs on a chattel. Whether the Implement Company has a common-law lien on the truck for storage presents a different question. This is the only lien for storage asserted by the Implement Company and the only one the parties argue in their briefs. One of our courts of appeals has stated
obiter
that no such lien exists at common law. Bostic v. Workman, supra,
*703
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff, Mack Motor Truck Corporation, the relief it prayed for in its petition, in so far as that judgment denies the defendants а lien for the repairs on the truck, is reversed. Our judgment is against the plaintiff, Mack Motor Truck Corporation, on its petition, and for the defendants, John Wolfe, doing business as Wolfe Implement Company, et al., on their counterclaim, in the sum of $404.87, the agreed value of the repairs made, or for the return of the truck by the Mack Motor Truck Corporation to the defendants, John Wolfe, doing business as Wolfe Implement Company, et al., until this amount is paid, according to the option of the defendants. McCluskey v. De Long, supra,
The trial court is directed to enter our judgment.