Lockwood v. Helfant

• Decision Date: 01 May 1940
• Citation: 13 A.2d 136,126 Conn. 584
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LOCKWOOD v. HELFANT et al.

13 A.2d 136

126 Conn. 584

LOCKWOOD v. HELFANT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 1, 1940

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.

Action by William Lockwood against Allen Helfant and others for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendants. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the named defendant appeals.

No error.

Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, for appellant.

John Keogh, Jr., of South Norwalk, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, JENNINGS, and BROWN JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The plaintiff was injured by a car driven by Miss Cummings and claimed to be owned by Helfant. On this appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff the sole issues were whether the jury could reasonably have found that Helfant was the owner and Miss Cummings was his agent.

The accident out of which this cause of action arose occurred April 12, 1938, at 8:30 a. m. The plaintiff introduced evidence to the effect that the car, an Oldsmobile, was registered in the name of Helfant at that time and that the check in payment therefor (Helfant claiming that the car was sold the night before) was not delivered until afterward. The defendants' evidence on the question of ownership may be summarized as follows: Helfant was a dealer in secondhand cars and the owner of the car in question. On April 9th Andrew Dominic and his friend Frances Cummings had tried the car and Dominic had expressed a desire to purchase it. He said his brother Charles owned a Ford which could probably be turned in as a part of the purchase price. Helfant told Dominic that he would investigate the credit situation and that, if that was found satisfactory, the deal could go through on Monday, April 11th. On Monday evening Andrew Charles and Helfant went to a personal finance company, where a loan of $120 was negotiated. They then returned to Helfant's office where Charles signed a bill of sale of the Ford to Dominic and Dominic signed a bill of sale of the Ford to Helfant as well as a used car order, a conditional bill of sale of the Oldsmobile and an application for markers for the latter. Andrew then drove the car away, borrowing Helfant's dealers' markers. He asked Miss Cummings to pick the car up at his place of employment the next day and have it tested at the state inspection lane. Dominic testified that the understanding was that if the inspection disclosed the necessity for repairs, they would be made by Helfant and that the check in payment was not to be delivered to Helfant until after the inspection.

The plaintiff claimed that the evidence tending to prove a transfer of ownership before the accident was untrue and fabricated for the purpose of relieving Helfant of liability and that it involved numerous contradictions. The jury could reasonably have descredited it (Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 733, 156 A. 863) or could have credited a part and disbelieved a part. Roberti v. Barbieri, 105 Conn. 539, 542, 136 A. 85. If they found, as claimed by the plaintiff, that the transaction of April 11th never took place, the undisputed fact that the car was registered in the name of Helfant at the time of the accident would support a conclusion that he was the owner at that time. Kaplenski v. Horwitz, 114 Conn. 523, 526, 159 A. 351. If they found that payment was not to be made and the transaction finally consummated until after the car had been tested and repaired, they could reasonably reach the same result. As stated above, the check was not in fact delivered until after the accident. The jury might have found a situation similar to that where personal property is delivered on trial and the sale is not to be consummated...