Commonwealth Loan Co. v. Berry
Commonwealth Loan Co. v. Berry Downtown Lincoln-Mercury Co.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Brown, J.
The pertinent section of the Uniform Commercial Code is Section 1309.29, Revised Code, effective July 1, 1962, which provides:
“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 possession of such *170 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 lien referred to in Section 1309.29, Revised Code, is the artisan’s lien. The artisan’s lien prior to the enactment of Section 1333.41, Revised Code, was a common-law lien. That section makes the artisan’s lien a statutory lien but expressly excludes motor vehicles from its operation. It follows that the artisan’s lien to the extent that it affects motor vehicles is still a common-law lien and, hence, does not fall within the exception in Section 1309.29, Revised Code.
The language of Section 4505.13, Revised Code, specifically makes a security agreement conveying a security interest in an automobile, if a notation of such instrument has been made by the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas on the face of the certificate of title, valid against other lienholders.
There is an apparent conflict as to the priority of the liens under the subject statutes. However, the General Assembly by expressly eliminating motor vehicles from the provisions of Section 1333.41, Revised Code, by expressly excepting motor vehicles from the required filing to protect a security interest in Section 1309.21 (C) 2, Revised Code, and by the amendments of Section 4505.13, Revised Code, the specific statute which deals with motor-vehicle liens and which states that a lien noted upon the certificate shall be valid against other liens, has made it clear that the enactment of the Uniform Com-mericial Code was not intended to alter the well established law of Ohio as to the priority of liens upon motor vehicles.
A special statutory provision which relates to a specific subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision which might otherwise be applicable. Andrianos v. Community Traction Co., 155 Ohio St. 47 .
We conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the specific priority provided in Section 4505.13, Revised Code, prevails over the general provision of Section 1309.29, Revised Code.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed Taft, C. J., ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Schneider, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding specific priority of liens under Certificate of Motor Vehicle Title Law as valid against general provisions in Uniform Commercial Code relating to artisan’s liens)
Cited by 32 cases
View all citing references →- Federal District Courts1
- Bankruptcy Courts8
- State Highest Courts7
- State Appellate Courts15
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.