Crawford Fin. Co. v. Derby
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | CARPENTER |
| Citation | 63 Ohio App. 50,25 N.E.2d 306 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD FINANCE CO. v. DERBY. |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1939 |
CRAWFORD FINANCE CO.
v.
DERBY.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Huron County.
May 1, 1939.
[25 N.E.2d 307]
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The holder of a chattel mortgage on, and a manufacturer's certificate of title to an automobile given to him by a dealer, has a lien on the automobile superior to any claim of a subsequent buyer of it from that dealer.
2. A chattel mortgage on a motor vehicle given by a dealer and accompanied by the manufacturer's certificate of title to such mortgaged vehicle, cannot be filed or recorded or registered by the holder, as long as he holds the certificate of title.
3. The Ohio certificate of title law for the registration of titles to motor vehicles, Sections 6290-2 to 6290-20, General Code, is exclusive, and the only way a buyer can acquire a good title to such a vehicle from a dealer is by procuring a certificate of title from the proper clerk of courts as provided for in Sections 6290-3, 6290-4 and 6290-5, General Code.
Action to replevy an automobile by the Crawford Finance Company against Kenneth R. Derby. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.-[Editorial Statement.]
Judgment reversed, and final judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Strelitz & Dowler, of Marion, and Carpenter & Freeman, of Norwalk, for appellant.
Young & Young and Earl S. Miller, all of Norwalk, for appellee.
Kenneth R. Derby, of Norwalk, in pro. per.
George D. Welles, of Toledo, amicus curiae.
CARPENTER, Judge.
This was an action in replevin for an automobile. At the close of the evidence the trial court, on motion of the defendant, entered a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed on questions of law.
Numerous errors are assigned, but the only ones that will receive consideration herein are the granting of defendant's motion for judgment, and the overruling of a similar motion by the plaintiff.
The material facts are undisputed. In substance, they are: For some time prior to August 13, 1938, Harry N. Bedell had been an authorized dealer in Hudson-Terraplane automobiles. On May 31, 1938, he obtained from a distributor, a new automobile of that make and with it a manufacturer's certificate of title, as provided for in Section 6290-2, General Code. Thereupon Bedell, for a valuable consideration, gave to plaintiff, the Crawford Finance Company, a chattel mortgage on that automobile and with it gave the company the manufacturer's certificate of title which he held. The chattel mortgage was not filed for record or registered with any official. That automobile remained in the possession of Bedell and was kept in his display room and offered for sale, and plaintiff knew this would be done.
On August 16, 1938, defendant, Kenneth R. Derby, without any knowledge of the chattel mortgage, constructive or otherwise, purchased the automobile and paid for it in full by transferring to Bedell a used automobile and paying the cash difference, and the automobile was delivered to Derby and he duly signed and left with Bedell an application for a certificate of ownership as required by Section 6290-5, General Code, but no such certificate was ever issued to Derby, although under that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 40598
...upon Loyal's Auto Exchange, Ins. v. Munch, 153 Neb. 628, 45 N.W.2d 913 (1951), quoting an Ohio case, Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306 (1939). The court concluded that 'A purchaser who receives possession of an automobile without obtaining the certificate of titl......
-
Calhoun v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 51194
...sharp conflicts. Ohio and Nebraska statutes are almost identical with Code section 321.45(2), I.C.A. In Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306, a dealer had mortgaged an automobile to plaintiff finance company and gave it possession of the title certificate. Defendant......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 81-914
...Inc. v. Munch, supra at [214 Neb. 233] 633-34, 45 N.W.2d at 918, we quoted with approval from the case of Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306 (1939), wherein it was said: " 'On the other hand, from the whole scheme of the Certificate of Title Act, especially the se......
-
Vannoy Chevrolet Co. v. Baum, 52372
...could 'recognize the right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any (that) motor vehicle'.' Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d In addition plaintiff knew the seller was required to deliver the certificate of title at the time of delivery of the vehicle. 3......
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 40598
...upon Loyal's Auto Exchange, Ins. v. Munch, 153 Neb. 628, 45 N.W.2d 913 (1951), quoting an Ohio case, Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306 (1939). The court concluded that 'A purchaser who receives possession of an automobile without obtaining the certificate of titl......
-
Calhoun v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 51194
...sharp conflicts. Ohio and Nebraska statutes are almost identical with Code section 321.45(2), I.C.A. In Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306, a dealer had mortgaged an automobile to plaintiff finance company and gave it possession of the title certificate. Defendant......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 81-914
...Inc. v. Munch, supra at [214 Neb. 233] 633-34, 45 N.W.2d at 918, we quoted with approval from the case of Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d 306 (1939), wherein it was said: " 'On the other hand, from the whole scheme of the Certificate of Title Act, especially the se......
-
Vannoy Chevrolet Co. v. Baum, 52372
...could 'recognize the right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any (that) motor vehicle'.' Crawford Finance Co. v. Derby, 63 Ohio App. 50, 25 N.E.2d In addition plaintiff knew the seller was required to deliver the certificate of title at the time of delivery of the vehicle. 3......