Associates Discount Corporation v. Crow, 7449.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1940
• Docket Number: No. 7449.,7449.
• Parties: ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. CROW.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

71 App. DC 336, 110 F.2d 126 (1940)

ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. CROW.

No. 7449.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided January 29, 1940.

William R. Lichtenberg and Joseph B. Danzansky, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Lewis H. Fisher and George A. Hospidor, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, VINSON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered against the appellant, Associates Discount Corporation (hereafter called the defendant), requiring it to deliver to the appellee, James L. Crow (hereafter called the plaintiff), a certificate of origin for a Chrysler automobile. An additional party defendant, the Georgetown Motors Inc. (hereafter called the Georgetown Motors), was not mentioned in the judgment and is not a party to the appeal. The judgment was entered upon the pleadings alone. These consisted of a complaint, an answer and counterclaim, and an "answer" to the counterclaim. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the trial court.

So far as we are able to determine from the pleadings, it was without dispute between the parties that: H. B. Leary Jr. & Bros. (hereafter called Leary & Bros.), a wholesale dealer in automobiles in the District of Columbia, was in possession of a certain Chrysler automobile and of a certificate of origin issued therefor by the Department of Vehicles and Traffic of the District of Columbia pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Title and Registration Regulations.¹ These regulations require certificates of origin and of title for automobiles. Leary & Bros. delivered the certificate of origin to the defendant and, with its knowledge and consent, delivered the automobile to the Georgetown Motors, this pursuant to an agreement between the latter and the defendant that the car would be displayed in a showroom of the Georgetown Motors for sale to the general public. The defendant had advanced money to the Georgetown Motors on the car. The Georgetown Motors never received the certificate of origin or a certificate of title for the car. The plaintiff "purchased" the car from the Georgetown Motors and demanded of the defendant the certificate of origin held by it. This the defendant refused to deliver except upon terms of reimbursement by the Georgetown Motors for the advance made upon the car.

It appears from the pleadings below and the briefs here that it was the contention of the defendant that the legal effect of the title and registration regulations is to render void any attempted transfer in the District of Columbia of title to an automobile, unless the transfer is made in strict compliance with the regulations — so that for lack of the required papers the Georgetown Motors obtained, and the plaintiff took, no title to the car involved in the instant case and the plaintiff was therefore in no position legally to demand of the defendant the certificate of origin. But to the contrary it appears that the position of the plaintiff was that the regulations referred to do not have the effect of making sales carried out without compliance therewith void, and that even if they do have such an effect, the defendant was estopped to set up the regulations against the sale and to claim title to the car and right to hold the certificate of origin in evidence thereof. As a foundation for the estoppel the plaintiff alleges in paragraph 3 of his complaint:

"3. That on the 10th day of December, 1938, the plaintiff purchased a 1939 Chrysler Automobile, the same being an Imperial Sedan, Serial No. 6744488, Engine No. C234376 from the defendant, the Georgetown Motors Inc., a retail dealer of automobiles in the District of Columbia, paying therefor the sum of $1,261.95 in cash. That the said automobile was delivered to the plaintiff bearing temporary dealers' tags. The sum of $3.00 was included in said purchase price to cover the cost of title, which the said Motor company promised to secure for the plaintiff in due course. Plaintiff avers that he purchased said automobile from the Georgetown Motors Inc. believing the said defendant to be the owner thereof, the same being displayed in its showroom for sale to the general public. That he was without knowledge either actual or constructive of the existence of any lien thereon."

Answering this the defendant in paragraph 3 of its answer:

". . . admits that the plaintiff purchased the automobile in said paragraph 3 but has no knowledge sufficient to form a belief concerning the payment therefor or any of...