Forrest v. Benson

• Decision Date: 10 October 1921
• Docket Number: 145
• Citation: 233 S.W. 916,150 Ark. 89
• Parties: FORREST v. BENSON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

233 S.W. 916

150 Ark. 89

FORREST v. BENSON

No. 145

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 10, 1921

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Guy Fulk, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Floyd Terral and J. C. Marshall, for appellant.

Mere possession of personal property belonging to another is not a sufficient badge of ownership or right of disposition in the possessor to enable him to confer title on an innocent purchaser. 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 760, note; 25 Am. Dec. 604 note; 62 Ark. 84; 20 Wend. 278. An estoppel cannot be created by merely intrusting possession of personal property to another. 54 Minn. 71. Possession by a bailee of personal property of the bailor does not confer colorable authority upon the bailee to sell or work an estoppel against the owner. 53 Minn. 27; 100 S.W. 351; 70 Am. Dec. 226; 42 Am Rep. 332; 42 Ill. 417; 42 Ark. 473. Forrest was not present at the sale, hence the estoppel created by standing by and encouraging a sale, or failing to object thereto, is absent. 10 Ark. 211; 14 Ark. 505. There is no showing in the record of any of the indicia of a right of disposition in Green, nor any act on the part of Forrest calculated to mislead any one into believing that Green had the right to sell the car or give title to it.

Troy W Lewis, for appellee.

If the owner of personal property suffers another to have possession of the property and of the documents which are the indicia of property, a bona fide purchaser for value from such possessor can hold the property against the true owner. Burdick on Sales, 198, 200; 35 Cyc. 357, note 6; 24 R. C. L. 665 and authorities.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted in the Pulaski Circuit Court by appellant against appellee to recover possession of a Ford automobile, the ownership of which is asserted by appellant. Upon a trial of the issues before a jury it resulted in a verdict in appellee's favor.

Appellant resides in the city of San Antonio, Texas, and claimed that he was the owner of the automobile there and lent it to one Green, who brought it to Little Rock and, without appellant's knowledge or consent, sold it to R. L. Bibb, who in turn sold it to appellee. It is undisputed that Bibb purchased the car from Green in good faith and without any information concerning appellant's claim of ownership, and that Benson likewise was innocent of any information concerning an adverse claim when he purchased the car from Bibb. The car was originally purchased by Green from a factory agency in San Antonio, and Green executed a mortgage on the car to secure the purchase price. According to appellant's testimony he made payments on the car for Green, and finally paid off the mortgage and caused the same to be assigned to him, and that Green thereupon sold and delivered the car to him. This occurred in the summer of 1918. In February or March, 1919, Green left San Antonio with the car in company with one Staehle, and made a tour of several States engaged in some kind of an advertising business. They went to New Orleans and spent a few days, and thence to Baton Rouge, Natchez, Vicksburg, Monroe, Shreveport and Texarkana, and on August 17, 1919, they arrived in Little Rock, and placed the car in a garage with which Bibb was connected in some capacity. Green stopped at one of the hotels in Little Rock and became indebted in a considerable amount for a board bill and pledged the garage claim check or ticket to the hotel management as security for the board bill. On August 23 appellant came to Little Rock in response to a telegram from Staehle, stating that Green had been injured in a fight, and after appellant's arrival here he advanced money to Green with which to pay his board bill. Appellant immediately returned to Texas, and on September 4 Green sold the car to Bibb, and about a week later Bibb sold it to appellee. Appellant testified that he owned the car, that he acquired it in the manner stated above, and that he merely lent the car to Green without giving the latter any interest in it or any authority to sell it. He testified that when he left Little Rock his agreement with Green was that the latter should immediately drive the car back to Texas. According to the testimony, the Texas license for the operation of the car was taken out in Green's name on February 8, 1918, and was renewed in his name on February 8, 1919.

The court...