Mielke v. Leeberson
| Decision Date | 29 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | 31447. |
| Citation | 150 Ohio St. 528,83 N.E.2d 209 |
| Parties | MIELKE et al. v. LEEBERSON. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the plain and unambiguous language of Section 6290-4, General Code, a court cannot recognize the right, title, claim or interest of any person in or to any motor vehicle, without the production of a certificate of title or manufacturer's or importer's certificate duly issued in accordance with the Certificate of Title Law, and any other evidence of ownership is not of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict or judgment where title must be proved as a condition precedent for the validity of such verdict or judgment.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Lucas County.
On October 19, 1945, appellant Edgar E. Mielke hereinafter designated plaintiff, was driving a 1941 Chrysler automobile east on Bancroft street in the city of Toledo. It was about 6:40 a. m., and plaintiff had a passenger in the automobile with him. At the same time, William Leeberson, appellee hereinafter designated defendant, was driving, with the intention of turning left into Clinton street, a 1938 Dodge coupe automobile west on Bancroft street. At the intersection of Bancroft and Clinton streets, there was a collision between the automobile driven by plaintiff and that driven by defendant, as a result of which plaintiff and appellant The Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, hereinafter designated insurance company, instituted an action in the Municipal Court of Toledo against defendant. Insurance company had paid for a part of the damages to plaintiff's automobile and was joined as a plaintiff having an interest in any recovery which might be had by plaintiff in the action.
Defendant filed an answer to the petition in the Municipal Court and by way of cross-petition prayed for damages against plaintiff on behalf of defendant and an insurance company which had paid the bill for a part of the damages which had happened to defendant's automobile as a result of the collision.
The Municipal Court dismissed the petition and the cross-petition, and plaintiff and insurance company, as well as defendant, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas county on questions of law and fact.
In the Court of Common Pleas, a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and insurance company against defendant, which verdict awarded nothing to defendant, and, thereafter defendant filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
On June 17, 1947, the Court of Common Pleas overruled the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and insurance company, in the sume of $313.23, based upon the verdict.
On June 18, 1947, defendant filed a motion for new trial upon seven enumerated grounds, the first of which was that the judgment was not sustained by sufficient evidence, was against the weight of the evidence and was contrary to law. This motion for a new trial was overruled by the Common Pleas Court, and an appeal was taken by defendant to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that the Court of Common Pleas erred in not granting the motion of defendant for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and rendered final judgment dismissing the petition of plaintiff and insurance company.
The case is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Marshall, Melhorn, Wall & Bloch, Arnold F. Bunge, and Wilbur C. Jacobs, all of Toledo, for appellants.
Ralph Emery and George H. Lewis, both of Toledo, for appellee.
We are called upon to decide only one question in this case, which is vital.
The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court. Two members of the Court of Appeals held that there should be a final judgment rendered in favor of defendant, while one member thereof was of the opinion that the case should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for a new trial.
Plaintiff and insurance company had brought their action upon the theory that plaintiff was the owner of the automobile which he was driving, and the sole basis of the judgment for defendant in the Court of Appeals was that that court found there was not sufficient evidence offered in the Court of Common Pleas to establish plaintiff's ownership, and that, therefore, plaintiff, having failed in sustaining an essential element of his claim, must have final judgment rendered against him.
The Court of Appeals based its judgment upon Section 6290-4, General Code, a part of the Certificate of Title Law of this state.
That section reads as follows:
The Court of Appeals said:
'Furthermore, the statute prohibits the courts of this state from giving any recognition to the 'right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any motor vehicle, * * *' unless evidenced by a certificate of title issued 'in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.'
* * *
* * *
As we have indicated, two members of the Court of Appeals were of the opinion that there must be a final judgment for the defendant. The third member of the court was of the opinion that error prejudicial to the defendant was committed by the Court of Common Pleas in relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial