Fouquette v. Millette
| Decision Date | 26 November 1941 |
| Parties | FOUQUETTE v. MILLETTE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit in equity by Albertine Fouquette, administratrix, against Joseph L. Millette, to require delivery of two trucks to plaintiff and to secure an accounting from defendant for profits earned by the use of the trucks. From a final decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.Appeal from Superior Court, Bristol County; Hurley, Judge.
Argued before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.
H. A. Lider, of New Bedford, for plaintiff.
E. A. Hathaway, of Taunton, for J. L. Millette.
This is a bill in equity to require the delivery of two trucks to the plaintiff, and to secure an accounting from the defendant for profits earned by the use of said trucks. The report of the master was confirmed in the Superior Court and the defendant appealed from a final decree granting the plaintiff relief.
The only question we have to decide is whether upon the findings of the master the plaintiff is barred from relief on the ground that the transaction upon which the bill is based was tainted with illegality.
We summarize the material findings of the master. The plaintiff's intestate, one Fouquette, had been engaged for many years in the trucking business in New Bedford, but in the spring of 1397 he was experiencing difficulty in securing work for his trucks. He had known the defendant for twenty-five years. He, too, among other activities, was engaged in the trucking business. The defendant, on account of his friendship with the mayor of that city, was able to and did obtain work for several of his trucks, some of which were registered in the names of other persons. In accordance with an arrangement made with the defendant, Fouquette transferred the registration of one of his trucks on April 26, 1937, and a second on January 1, 1938, into the name of one Grenier, a trusted employee of the defendant, solely for the purpose of securing work from the city, and with the understanding with the defendant that the trucks were to remain the property of Fouquette and that they were to be returned to him when they were no longer employed in the city work, or when the present mayor failed of reelection. Fouquette did not intend to pass title to the trucks and knew that they were illegally registered in the name of Grenier. After the trucks were registered in Grenier's name, the defendant succeeded in having them employed in city work. In the fall of 1938, Fouquette, the defendant and Grenier were summoned to appear before a grand jury. In accordance with an agreement among them, they told an assistant district attorney that the trucks belonged to the defendant and were registered in the name of Grenier. Both the defendant and Grenier were indicted for a conspiracy to violate G.L. (Ter.Ed) c. 90. After the session of the grand jury, the registration of the trucks was transferred from Grenier to the defendant. While one of the trucks was registered in the name of Grenier it was involved in two accidents, but the insurance company refused to acknowledge liability on the ground that the truck was illegally registered. Both claims were settled by the defendant. The master found that Fouquette was the owner of the trucks and that they were illegally registered.
After the trucks were registered in the name of Grenier, they were kept in the same place as they were before such registration, except that one of the trucks was sometimes kept in the street in front of the house of the person who was operating it. Fouquette continued to make and pay for repairs on the trucks, the gasoline and oil consumed by the trucks were charged to him as late as October 15, 1938, and the defendant did not pay for any gasoline or oil. Fouquette went to the municipal building for the pay checks, which were made out in the name of Grenier, and had Grenier indorse them to him, and Fouquette occasionally drove the trucks without compensation ‘when no W.P.A. driver’ was available. There is nothing in the report of the master that indicates that Grenier had actual possession of the trucks or that he in fact exercised any control over their operation. The owners of automobiles, other than those controlled by dealers or manufacturers, are the only persons entitled to registration under the statute, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 90, § 2, but ownership is not confined to those who have an absolute title to the vehicle but extends to those who have a special property therein. Downey v. Bay State Street Railway, 225 Mass. 281, 114 N.E. 207;Hyland v. Hyland, 278 Mass. 112, 179 N.E. 612;Squires v. Fraska, 301 Mass. 474, 17 N.E.2d 693. The registration in the name of Grenier was some evidence that he was the owner. Burns v. Winchell, 305 Mass. 276, 25 N.E.2d 752; but such evidence may be rebutted, MacKenzie v. MacKenzie, 306 Mass. 291, 28 N.E.2d 236, and upon the findings of the master Grenier had no more than a paper title to the registration, and the master's...
To continue reading
Request your trial