Millard v. Hall
| Decision Date | 26 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 6260.,6260. |
| Citation | 135 A. 855 |
| Parties | MILLARD v. HALL et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence & Bristol Counties; J. Jerome Hahn, Judge.
Action by Alfred E. Millard against George T. Hall and others. A verdict was directed for the defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted, with direction.
Frederick W. O'Connell and Swan, Keeney & Smith, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
Walter J. Hennessey, of Providence, for defendants.
This was an action of replevin brought by a purchaser of an automobile at an execution sale. Defendant Arter claimed title, and the trial court directed a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff's exception thereto is before us.
The case involves a conditional sale, commonly referred to as a lease. Such a lease is valid without record in Rhode Island. A chattel mortgage except as between the parties requires record or taking and retention of possession. There was no evidence for plaintiff to contradict the oral and documentary evidence of ownership offered in behalf of defendant Arter. The facts need not be recited. We have read and considered the testimony carefully and the suggestions of plaintiff about it.
The evidence showed that Arter, who was engaged in business as the Rhode Island Finance Company, had advanced money to Provuncher, an auto dealer, on other lease contracts. There is no oral testimony to furnish the basis for a reasonable inference of agency of Provuncher for Arter in the present transaction, nor did the use of a printed form with transfer to Arter do so. Nor is there any oral testimony that either transaction between Wood and Provuncher was a loan secured by a chattel mortgage. The evidence of both, the former having been called by plaintiff, is explicit that there was no loan; that the sale by Wood to Provuncher on June 3d was absolute; that, when Wood wanted to get the car back on June 5th, Provuncher sold the car to Wood on lease containing terms such as upon discount would net to Provuncher approximately the $365 he had parted with on June 3d.
Because the price stated in the lease was not the actual consideration, and because repurchase of the car two days after its sale was unusual, plaintiff seeks to have the jury given the opportunity to discredit the bona fides of the asserted transaction between Wood and Provuncher. Discrediting it, however, would not prevent Arter's claim from taking precedence over that of plaintiff, whose rights rise no higher than Wood's. Arter's good faith was not discredited. Plaintiff, even with the suspicion that Wood and Provuncher were attempting to deceive Arter, is still far from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark
... ... 50; Lepay v. Anderson, ... (Wis.) 125 N.W. 433. Suspicion or conjecture cannot take ... the place of proper proof. Millard v. Hall, (R. I.) ... 135 A. 855; Banker v. Miller, 7 F.2d 293; James ... v. Company, (Cal.) 36 P. 401; Woulfe v. R. Co., ... (Kan.) 223 P ... ...
- Leonard v. Bartle
-
Lapierre v. Greenwood
...to the lack of defects in the treads, such disbelief would not produce affirmative testimony that there were such defects. In Millard v. Hall, R.I., 135 A. 855, 856, this court remarked that where a defendant's testimony is unfavorable the plaintiff cannot expect 'to have the court, not onl......
-
Gunn v. McCabe
...to a jury. I think it is a question of fact." In this view the court was correct. There is nothing therein at variance with Millard v. Hall (R. I.) 135 A. 855; or Lewis v. Bull, 48 R. I. 166, 136 A. 443. Defendant's explanations of his expenditures for plaintiff and the circumstances surrou......