Pike v. Rhinehart
| Decision Date | 06 August 1952 |
| Citation | 246 P.2d 963,112 Cal.App.2d 530 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PIKE v. RHINEHART et al. Civ. 18873. |
William K. Young, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Bromley, Ritter & Lindersmith, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Back in 1945 plaintiff, Mrs. Dulcie Pike, owned a Ford automobile. Defendant, Patricia Rhinehart, owned a Buick. Mrs. Pike lived in Los Angeles; Mrs. Rhinehart lived in San Francisco.
While Mrs. Rhinehart, her husband, and her son were visiting in Los Angeles the Buick was wrecked. It was in a garage to be repaired, but was not in shape to be driven. The Rhineharts needed immediate transportation to get home to San Francisco. So they traded their Buick for Mrs. Pike's Ford, and in a day or two went home. In a short time the Buick was repaired and delivered to Mrs. Pike.
Now, let's go on with this modern tale of two cities. There was a chattel mortgage on the Buick; Mrs. Pike's title to her Ford was clear. So Mrs. Pike transferred title to the Ford by endorsing her certificate of ownership and registration card. But, unfortunately for her, she did not insist on a like transfer of the Buick to her. She just took Mrs. Rhinehart's word that four or five payments were still due on the Buick, two or three hundred dollars, and Mrs. Rhinehart's promise to make these payments. Had Mrs. Pike followed the plain provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code she would have been spared the trouble and loss which befell her.
Instead of keeping her promise and clearing title to the Buick, Mrs. Rhinehart thereafter on two occasions pledged it, with other assets, to defendant Seaboard Finance Company; first to secure a loan of $5,000 to her and her husband, and, later, when she and her husband separated, for $2,458.94 of the $5,000, which she assumed and agreed to pay.
When the $5,000 loan was made the balance due on the chattel mortgage on the Buick when it was traded was paid.
In all these transactions the pink slip followed the obligation,--from American Trust Company, who had it when the Buick was delivered to Mrs. Pike, to Seaboard, as partial security for the last two mentioned obligations. Eventually Mrs. Rhinehart defaulted on the last loan, and Seaboard took the Buick away from Mrs. Pike.
Then Mrs. Pike brought this action against Mrs. Rhinehart and Seaboard. It was adjudged in the Superior Court that she recover $1,000 damages from Mrs. Rhinehart, and that she was the owner of, and entitled to possession of the Buick upon paying to Seaboard $1,085, the balance found by the trial court to be due at the time of Seaboard's repossession.
Mrs. Rhinehart did not appeal from the judgment; Mrs. Pike and Seaboard did. The judgment was reversed by this Court, Pike v. Rhinehart, 96 Cal.App.2d 645, 647, 216 P.2d 101 for the reason, as stated in the opinion, that the determinative question as between Mrs. Pike and Seaboard was whether Seaboard acquired its mortgage lien for value and without notice, actual or constructive, of plaintiff's ownership; and that, as to this fact, the findings were insufficient and in conflict with the judgment.
The case was retried in the Superior Court on this issue. The trial court found that Seaboard had no notice, and adjudged that Seaboard owned the Buick and that Mrs. Pike had no interest in it.
From this judgment Mrs. Pike appeals.
A review of the record shows that the evidence sustains the findings and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruby v. Wellington
...of an estoppel is a question of fact. Safway Steel Products, Inc., v. Lefever, 117 Cal.App.2d 489, 256 P.2d 32; Pike v. Rhinehart, 112 Cal.App.2d 530, 246 P.2d 963. The motion to dismiss was heard entirely on affidavits and counteraffidavits. In considering an appeal from an order granted o......
-
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gilbert
...Corp., 54 Cal.2d 773, 778, 8 Cal.Rptr. 448, 356 P.2d 192.) The existence of an estoppel is a question of fact. (Pike v. Rhinehart, 112 Cal.App.2d 530, 533, 246 P.2d 963.) G.M.A.C. did not in any way participate in the deception of defendant. It did not clothe Desmond with the legal title wh......
-
Singleton v. Perry
...rules respecting transfer of personal property give way to those set forth in the Vehicle Code. (Citation.)' (Pike v. Rhinehart (1952), 112 Cal.App.2d 530, 532, 246 P.2d 963.) The transaction as to the Cadillac took place, as previously stated, in 1952. Applicable sections of the Vehicle Co......
-
Calhoun v. Huntington Park First Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...v. Trobock, 134 Cal. 441, 444, 62 P. 1066, 66 P. 587. Ordinarily the existence of an estoppel is a question of fact. Pike v. Rhinehart, 112 Cal.App.2d 530, 533, 246 P.2d 963. The evidence before us sustains the finding of nonreliance. Moreover, evidence with respect to Calhoun's silence at ......