Planter v. Bourne

• Decision Date: 01 September 1925
• Docket Number: No. 3829.,3829.
• Citation: 275 S.W. 590
• Parties: PLATNER v. BOURNE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

275 S.W. 590

PLATNER v. BOURNE.

No. 3829.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 1, 1925.

Error to Circuit Court, Jasper County; S. W. Bates, Judge.

Replevin by Menzo Platner against E. A. Bourne, administratrix of William S. Rose, deceased. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

T. C. Tadlock and George V. Farris, both of Joplin, for plaintiff in error.

McReynolds, McReynolds & Flanigan, of Carthage, for defendant in error.

COX, P. J.

Action in replevin for possession of an automobile. The possession pending trial was delivered to plaintiff. The answer alleged ownership in defendant, and demanded a return of the property or its value at defendant's election. On trial by the court, the issues were found for defendant, and the value of the property assessed at $150, and defendant given the right of election to take the automobile or its value. Plaintiff sued out writ of error in this court.

Plaintiff based his right of recovery upon title acquired by a purchase of the automobile in the state of Oklahoma. When purchased, he received a bill of sale from the owner, dated January 1, 1923, and properly acknowledged before a notary public. Plaintiff then lived at Carterville in this state. He brought the car to Carterville and it was placed in the possession and care of William S. Rose, who is since deceased. Plaintiff's contention is that he only loaned the car to Mr. Rose, who was to make some repairs on the car and should have the privilege of using it. Plaintiff's evidence tended to support that contention. Defendant contended that plaintiff had given the car to Mr. Rose and delivered the possession of the car to him, and in that way made the gift binding and hence the defendant, as administratrix of Mr. Rose, was entitled to the possession of the car. Defendant's evidence tended to support that contention. The court found for defendant, hence, as far as the facts are concerned, his finding binds us.

The administratrix found no bill of sale or certificate of registration or other written evidence of title to the car among the papers of deceased, and it is practically conceded that he had none. Neither was there any evidence that plaintiff had secured a certificate of registration, and the case seems to have been tried on the theory that he had none. For defendant, the court declared the law to be that if the car in question came to Missouri from Oklahoma and was never registered under the laws of Missouri as a licensed automobile, then it was not essential to passage of title to Mr. Rose that a certificate of ownership under the Act of 1921 be shown to have been executed, and the burden was on plaintiff to show that said motorcar had been registered in this state. The plaintiff asked, and the court refused, a declaration of law to the effect that if it were shown that plaintiff was the owner of the automobile as shown by the bill of sale in evidence, and that he delivered possession of the car to Rose, and Rose died before plaintiff transferred the title to the car, as required by the law of the state, then Rose did not acquire title, and the finding should be that title was in plaintiff when the suit was filed, and that he was entitled to its possession as prayed in the petition.

On the legal questions involved in this case, the position of defendant is that since the automobile had been brought into this state from another state and had not been registered in this state, it could be legally transferred without any certificate of title being shown. This theory seems to have been adopted by the court. The position of plaintiff is, first, that the fact that the...