Moore v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 11 June 1929 |
| Parties | MOORE et al. v. WILSON. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Estill County.
Action by B. F. Wilson against Rosa Moore, in which an automobile claimed by Clarence Moore was attached as defendant's property. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant and claimant appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Hunter M. Shumate, of Irvine, for appellants.
Rice & Rice and John W. Walker, all of Irvine, for appellee.
B. F Wilson sued Rosa Moore to recover the sum of $286 for services rendered in burying her former husband. At the same time he sued out an attachment, which was levied on a Jewett automobile as the property of the defendant. During the progress of the action Clarence Moore, Rosa's stepson intervened and asserted title to the automobile. The jury found for Wilson, and the court sustained the attachment. A new trial was granted for the sole purpose of determining the true ownership of the automobile. At the conclusion of the evidence the court peremptorily instructed the jury to find that the automobile was the property of Rosa Moore. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The evidence is as follows: The car was transferred by the former owner to Rosa Moore on December 14, 1927, and the transfer certificate was recorded in the Estill county clerk's office on that day. On the same day Rosa Moore executed a bill of sale transferring the car to Clarence Moore. When she came into the clerk's office to make the transfer to Clarence Moore the clerk informed her that some one had been in looking about the car. She replied, "I don't see why, because I don't owe anybody anything." When the officer, Dave Samples, went to find out about the car, W. E. Moore, Rosa's husband, said that he had bought the car. The officer said, "You don't tell me that Rosa Moore has no interest in it." W. E. Moore said, "She had some money in it, but I bought the car and I gave the car to Clarence, my son; I couldn't keep the car up, and he is a mechanic, and I gave him the car." Rosa Moore testified that she was formerly the wife of Millard Rogers, but was then the wife of W. E. Moore. She made a bill of sale for the Jewett automobile to her stepson, Clarence Moore, some time in December, 1927. Clarence did not pay her anything. The car was not hers. She did not know the bill of sale was in her name until her husband asked her to make the bill of sale to Clarence. She never paid for the car, or let her husband have the money to pay for it. The car belonged to him. He asked that the bill of sale be made to her because he owed a little, and they had a judgment against him. On the death of her former husband she received $1,000 insurance money. On July 18, she drew out $897.03. She gave her mother $350. The balance of it she used to pay some debts her husband owed, to pay rent, to keep her two brothers, to buy clothes and things for them. Clarence Moore admitted that he got a bill of sale for the automobile from Rosa Moore in the month of December, 1927, and that he did not pay her anything for the car. However, he did pay his father, W. E. Moore, $200 for the car, and had it repaired at an expense of $50. He was to pay in installments of $50 a month. He paid for the car before he got the bill of sale. When he made the purchase he did not know who had the bill of sale, and did not know that Wilson was claiming any indebtedness against Mrs. Moore. His father had been working in a shoe shop, but had no property that could be attached for debts. He got possession of the car some time in October, and the bill of sale was not made until December.
It is conceded that Clarence Moore did not pay Rosa Moore anything for the car. Therefore, if Rosa Moore owned the automobile, the transfer to him was in fraud of Wilson's rights as a creditor and passed no title so far as he was concerned.
Appellee insists that the evidence was abundantly sufficient to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janney v. Bell
...1934, 36 W.W.Harr., Del., 88, 171 A. 446; Commercial Credit Co. v. Schreyer, 120 Ohio St. 568, 166 N.E. 808, 63 A.L.R. 674; Moore v. Wilson, 230 Ky. 49, 18 S. W.2d 873; Williams v. Stringfield, 76 Colo. 343, 231 P. 658; Bond Lumber Co. v. Timmons, 82 Mont. 497, 267 P. 802; Carolina Discount......
-
Rigney v. Swingley
... ... in possession of the automobile. Shockley v. Hill, ... 91 Colo. 451, 15 P.2d 623; Moore v. Wilson, 230 Ky ... 49, 18 S.W.2d 873. In this state the rule is made plain by ... Section ... 1758.3, Revised Codes, ... ...
-
Bevins v. Ford
...as against one asserting title in opposition thereto, has been before this court in a number of cases, some of which are: Moore v. Wilson, 230 Ky. 49, 18 S.W.2d 873; Boden v. Harter, 240 Ky. 138, 41 S.W.2d Higginbotham v. Higginbotham's Trustee, etc., 253 Ky. 218, 69 S.W.2d 329; Cartwright ......
-
Bevins v. Ford
...as against one asserting title in opposition thereto, has been before this court in a number of cases, some of which are: Moore v. Wilson, 230 Ky. 49, 18 S. W. 2d 873; Boden v. Harter, 240 Ky. 138, 41 S.W. 2d 920; Higginbotham v. Higginbotham's Trustee, etc., 253 Ky. 218, 69 S.W. 2d 329; Ca......