Gramm-Bernstein Motor Truck Co. v. Todd

• Decision Date: 28 August 1922
• Docket Number: 17241.
• Citation: 121 Wash. 145,209 P. 3
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAMM-BERNSTEIN MOTOR TRUCK CO. v. TODD et al.

209 P. 3

121 Wash. 145

GRAMM-BERNSTEIN MOTOR TRUCK CO. v. TODD et al.

No. 17241.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 28, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Wm. D. Askren, Judge.

Action by the Gramm-Bernstein Motor Truck Company against Wilbur R Todd and others, doing business as the Automobile Finance Company, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Guy E Kelly, of Tacoma, and Thomas MacMahon, of Seattle, for appellant.

H. G. &amp Dix H. Rowland, of Tacoma, for respondents.

BRIDGES J.

The appellant is the manufacturer at Lima, Ohio, of a certain truck bearing its name. Some years ago it made an arrangement with one N. F. Rea of Tacoma, whereby he should be authorized to purchase and exclusively sell its trucks in a certain territory in Washington, including Pierce county. Generally speaking, the trucks would be shipped to Rea, who, before being able to obtain the bill of lading, would be required either to give to the appellant a chattel mortgage securing notes representing the purchase price or a conditional sales contract. Rea had his place of business in the city of Tacoma, and usually kept one or more of these trucks on display and for sale. During the past three or four years he had sold a number of appellant's trucks. In the latter part of 1920 appellant shipped to Rea the truck here involved. It was surrendered into his possession upon the execution of a conditional sale contract. This contract fixed the price to be paid, the times of payment, and provided that title should remain in the appellant at all times until the full purchase price was paid, and contained other covenants usual in such instruments. This contract was filed with the auditor of Pierce county within the statutory time. Some time in March, 1921, Rea sold this last-named truck to the respondent, A. Holroyd, for $5,682.50. At the time of the sale the truck was in Rea's display room. Holroyd paid down a part of the purchase price, and gave to Rea his notes covering the balance, and Rea gave to him the usual conditional sales contract. The truck was then delivered into the possession of Holroyd. Almost at once after the sale Rea assigned to the respondent, the Automobile Finance Company, of Tacoma, the notes received from Holroyd and also the conditional sales contract. It appears that Rea did not pay the appellant the balance of the purchase price for the truck in question, and because thereof it replevied the machine, which it found in the possession of Holroyd.

The sole question is whether Rea had power and authority to agree to sell this truck to the respondent Holroyd, and convey a good title to him. It may be conceded for the purposes of this case that under the circumstances above related the appellant might agree to sell its truck to Rea, and under its conditional sales contract hold the title, even as against a person to whom Rea might sell, and such person not having any actual knowledge of the conditional sale. But to accomplish this the appellant must have dealt with Rea in a manner not inconsistent with the...