Quinn v. Gehlert

• Decision Date: 11 January 1927
• Parties: QUINN v. GEHLERT. No. 19386.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

291 S.W. 138

QUINN v. GEHLERT. No. 19386.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 11, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Harry A. Rosskopf, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Frank J. Quinn against Florence E. Gehlert. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Keil & Keil, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Frank J. Quinn, of St. Louis, pro se.

BECKER, J.

Defendant below, in an action in replevin, appeals from a judgment resulting from a directed verdict for the plaintiff for the possession of an automobile.

The record discloses that plaintiff obtained from the secretary of state the requisite certificate of title dated March 30, 1923, to the automobile in question, and that the plaintiff did not at any time thereafter indorse on said certificate any assignment thereof, nor indorse any warranty of title with a statement of any liens or incumbrances on said automobile, nor deliver the same to any one as purchaser thereof, as is required in the event of a sale or transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of ownership has been issued under the provisions of the Motor Law passed by the Fifty-First General Assembly (Extra Session) and reported in the Laws of Missouri of 1921, Extra Session, pp. 76 to 107, inclusive. The record further discloses that the defendant, to defeat plaintiff in his action for replevin of the automobile, set up as his defense thereto that he had purchased the said automobile from an automobile company into whose hands the plaintiff had delivered the said automobile with directions to make sale thereof. It is frankly admitted on the part of the defendant that he at no time received a certificate of ownership from any one for the car in question, and, consequently, had never presented any certificate of ownership for the car to the cernmissioner of motor vehicles, as required by the said Motor Vehicle Law, supra.

Our Supreme Court in State ex rel. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Cox, 306 Mo. 537, 268 S. W. 87, 37 A. L. R. 1456, with reference to section 18 of the Motor Vehicle Law, supra, rule that—

"Following the construction placed by this court upon laws of a similar nature, * * * we are driven to the inevitable conclusion that the provision of the above act requiring the assignment, in case of a sale, to be made on the back of the certificate of title and returned as a part of such certificate is mandatory in its terms. * * *"

Said provision of the act...