Banner Chevrolet, Inc. v. Associates Discount Corporation, 17311
| Decision Date | 20 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 17311,17311 |
| Citation | 443 S.W.2d 370 |
| Parties | BANNER CHEVROLET, INC., Appellant, v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Appellee. . Dallas |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ralph Elliott, of Elliott & Nall, Sherman, for appellant.
Jack Kennedy and Robert W. Minshew, of Brown, Kennedy & Hill, Sherman, for appellee.
This is a companion case to Rattan Chevrolet, Inc., appellant, v. Associates Discount Corporation, appellee, 443 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1969), and involving the construction of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code (Title 1, Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 785, Acts 1967, 60th Texas Legislature) and its relationship to certain portions of the Texas Certificate of Title Act, Art. 1436--1, Vernon's Ann.Penal Code of Texas.
This suit was originally instituted by Associates Discount Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Associates), against R. A. Parker, d/b/a R. A. Parker Chevrolet (hereinafter referred to as Parker), and Banner Chevrolet Company (hereinafter called Banner), in which Associates sought judgment on a promissory note and for foreclosure under its 'Security Agreement' covering a new 1968 Chevrolet Impala automobile which had been sold by Parker to Banner. Banner answered by alleging ownership in the vehicle and, by cross-action, sought to require Associates to deliver the manufacturer's statement of origin which it held, and also for damages for conversion of the automobile by virtue of its seizure of same by writ of sequestration and willful withholding of the manufacturer's certificate of origin. By agreement of the parties the automobile was sold and the proceeds thereof deposited in the registry of the district court. Therefore, the injunctive and title feature of the case became moot.
Both Associates and Banner filed motions for summary judgment and the court granted the summary judgment in favor of Associates against Parker on the promissory note, and also foreclosed Associates' lien against Parker and Banner covering the automobile and ordered the funds realized from the sale of the automobile to be applied to Associates' judgment. It denied the motion for summary judgment by Banner. Parker does not appeal from that part of the judgment against him.
Banner appeals contending, in three points of error, that (1) since the undisputed evidence established that Banner bought the new automobile for value out of Parker's inventory and in the ordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associates Discount Corp. v. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc.
...Banner are entitled. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc. v. Associates Discount Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 443 S.W.2d 360; Banner Chevrolet, Inc. v. Associates Discount Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 443 S.W.2d 370. Although we agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that Rattan and Banner may be entitled to protection a......