Hunter v. Moore
| Decision Date | 13 August 1954 |
| Citation | 276 S.W.2d 754,38 Tenn.App. 533 |
| Parties | Leon HUNTER, d/b/a Central Motor Company, Complainant-Appellant, v. R. L. MOORE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
J. F. Wheless, Chattanooga, for appellant.
King & Fuston, Chattanooga, for appellee.
This is a replevin action involving a Cadillac automobile which complainant-appellant sold to T. C. McDonald on August 5, 1952, accepting in payment McDonald's check which was later dishonored. Defendant is a purchaser from McDonald. The Chancellor held defendant a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice and complainant estopped to claim title on the ground that he placed in McDonald's hands a bill of sale purporting to transfer perfect, unencumbered title upon which defendant relied.
Complainant has appealed, insisting that, under the provisions of the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Title and Registration Law of 1951, Chapter 70, Acts of 1951, no title passed to McDonald and that defendant had constructive notice of a defect in title because McDonald had no certificate of title. It is also mildly insisted that McDonald committed larceny and, for that reason, the bill of sale to him is void.
Complainant, an automobile dealer of Nashville, Tennessee, purchased the Cadillac on August 2, 1952, from Earl W. Fletcher, a resident of the State of Georgia. It bore a Georgia license tag but, Georgia being a 'non-title' state, no state approved certificate of title was required of the seller in that transaction. A bill of sale, however, was executed by Fletcher to complainant.
On August 5, 1952, complainant was contacted by Tommy Glascock, an automobile salesman of Nashville with whom complainant was acquainted, and advised that T. C. McDonald of Ardmore, Alabama, was in Nashville and desired to buy some automobiles. He described McDonald as an automobile dealer. McDonald was later brought by Glascock to complainant's garage and, after negotiations of several hours duration, complainant agreed to sell McDonald the Cadillac car here involved along with three other cars. McDonald thereupon issued a separate check to complainant for each of the four cars, all on the Bank of Ardmore. The agreed price of the Cadillac was $3,435.
Complainant testified that the transaction was completed about 11 P.M. of the same day, August 5, 1952; that he agreed to accept the checks but retained title in the sale order signed by McDonald and also retained the bill of sale from Fletcher; that McDonald then stated that he needed a bill of sale for his protection in case he should be stopped on the highway by the police and that he then executed and delivered to McDonald a bill of sale purporting to give him unencumbered title; that he, complainant, felt safe in this because McDonald could not get a certificate of title from the State until after the checks had cleared the Bank and could not sell the car without such certificate.
McDonald immediately drove the Cadillac to Cleveland, Tennessee, and there entered it in a public auction of used cars regularly conducted in Cleveland. It bore a Tennessee 'drive-out' tag. At the sale McDonald announced that the Cadillac was a Georgia car or a 'no title' car, meaning according to trade usage that it was a car from a state which did not require a state issued certificate of title. Defendant having seen the bill of sale from complainant to McDonald placed the high bid and issued his check to McDonald for $3,275 which has been paid although defendant later attempted without avail to stop payment.
McDonald was represented at the auction, as he had been in Nashville, as a dealer of Ardmore, Alabama. Complainant testified that after the Bank refused payment on the check on August 7, 1952, he made an investigation in the Clerk's office at Ardmore, Alabama, and was unable to find that a dealer's license had ever been issued to T. C. McDonald. This is the extent of the proof on that question.
In a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court it has been held that where a seller delivers possession along with indicia of perfect title he is estopped 'to assert a claim as against a purchaser for value from the one to whom possession plus indicia of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Poteet
...Other cases involve the rights of an unpaid seller against someone who buys a car from the defaulting buyer. Hunter v. Moore, 38 Tenn.App. 533, 276 S.W.2d 754 (1959); Edwards v. Central Motor Company, 38 Tenn.App. 577, 277 S.W.2d 413 (1954) aff'd 198 Tenn. 50, 277 S.W.2d 417 (1955). In thos......
-
Clanton's Auto Auction Sales, Inc. v. Young
...B. Motors Inc. v. Prichard, 303 Ill.App. 318, 25 N.E.2d 129; Al's Auto Sales v. Moskowitz, 203 Okl. 611, 224 P.2d 588; Hunter v. Moore, 38 Tenn.App. 533, 276 S.W.2d 754; Weigelt v. Factors Credit Corp., 174 Pa.Super. 400, 101 A.2d 404; Heaston v. Martinez, 3 Utah 2d 259, 282 P.2d 833; Pacif......
-
Dunn v. Alabama Oil & Gas Co.
...notice. Payne v. State, 158 Tenn. 209, 12 S.W.2d 528. In the absence of such written notice, there was no crime. Hunter v. Moore, 38 Tenn.App. 533, 539, 276 S.W.2d 754, 756; State v. Crockett, supra; Jones v. State, Upon this evidence we think the jury could reasonably find that J. E. McKee......
-
Mercado v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...of the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Title and Registration Law is not a prerequisite to transfer of ownership. Hunter v. Moore, 38 Tenn.App. 533, 538, 276 S.W.2d 754, 756 (1954). In Hayes v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 57 Tenn.App. 254, 417 S.W.2d 804 (1967) in a case similar to the present case......