Endres v. Mara-Rickenbacker Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1928
• Docket Number: No. 96.,96.
• Parties: ENDRES v. MARA-RICKENBACKER CO. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

243 Mich. 5

219 N.W. 719

ENDRES

v.MARA-RICKENBACKER CO. et al.

No. 96.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 4, 1928.

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.

Action by John J. Endres against the Mara-Rickenbacker Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.J. T. & T. F. McAllister, of Grand Rapids, for appellants.

Cornelius Hoffius and Dorr Kuizema, both of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

CLARK, J.

Defendant Mara-Rickenbacker Company, a corporation dealing in secondhand automobiles, acquired by purchase an automobile registered in Ohio. On August 25, 1926, the defendant dealer sold the car to defendant Pushkin, who paid for it and accepted delivery. Pending receipt of certificate of title and of registration in this state, and that Pushkin might use the car, the dealer loaned him a set of its license plates which were put on the car.

On August 27, 1926, while Pushkin was driving the car, having on it license plates of the dealer, it collided with plaintiff's car to plaintiff's damage which was caused by Pushkin's negligence. The declaration, as amended, may be said to be against both of the above defendants. The dealer alone defended. Tried without a jury, there were findings and judgment for plaintiff and defendant dealer brings error.

Plaintiff contends that, although the defendants made a bargain, the price was paid and accepted, and the car was taken and delivered, there was no sale, because certificate of title had not passed, that the car still was owned by the dealer who therefore was liable, having consented to Pushkin's driving it for ‘sale or demonstration purposes,’ citing section 11, Act 287, Public Acts of 1925.

Appellant urges that there was a sale, that Pushkin was the owner of the car at the time of the accident, and that the use, though illegal, of the dealer's license plates had no causal relation to the accident, and that it, therefore, is not liable.

If Pushkin was the owner of the car at the time of the accident, the dealer is not liable here for the reason that its license plates, loaned to and used by Pushkin, neither caused nor contributed to cause the accident, had no causal relation to it. Spencer v. Phillips & Taylor, 219 Mich. 353, 189 N. W. 204;Beebe v. Hannett, 224 Mich. 88, 194 N. W. 542;Janik v. Ford Motor Co., 180 Mich. 557, 147 N. W. 510,52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 294, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 669. This rule is supported by the great weight of authority. Notes 16 A. L. R. 1108, and 35 A. L. R. 62.

If the dealer owned the car at the time in question, it follows on the facts here that it consented to Pushkin's driving it and therefore, under a statute of this state, the dealer is liable. Section 29, Act 287, Public Acts of 1925.

The decisive question is, Which of the defendants owned the car? Is the sale void for the dealer's violation of the statute (section 3, Act 16, Public Acts of 1923), in failing to deliver to Pushkin ‘an affidavit of conveyance or assignment in such form as the secretary of state shall prescribe, to which shall be attached the assigned certificate of title received by such dealer’? By section 4 of Act No. 46, Public Acts of 1921, it was a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, to sell a motor vehicle without complying with the provisions of section 3 above quoted from. The Legislature provided penalty for such violation, fine or imprisonment, or both. It did not expressly provide that the sale or transfer...