Ragg v. Hurd
| Decision Date | 18 July 1952 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 673 |
| Parties | RAGG et al. v. HURD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellants.
Hall & Hedrick, Miami, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment against the appellants as the owners of an automobile which struck and injured the plaintiff-appellee while it was being driven by one Harper under circumstances hereinafter related. The principal question here is the ownership vel non of the car by the appellants.
The testimony adduced at the trial shows that the appellants owned and operated a used car lot; that Harper on Sunday, January 15, 1950, negotiated with one of their salesmen, Campau, for the purchase of a used car; that the salesman fixed the price of the car at $185 if the appellants repaired a defective gear shift, and at $160 if Harper purchased the car without such repairs; that Harper wanted to drive the car around to see if there was anything more wrong with it and whether he wanted to take it for $160 or for $185; that Harper then drove the car away from the appellants' lot, alone, with instructions from Campau to return the car to the lot before closing time that day if he did not want the car, or else to come in the next morning at the opening hour of business to close the transaction. As to the circumstances under which Harper took the car away, Campau testified as follows: Harper testified that he tried to reach Campau Monday morning to discuss a further reduction in price, but was unable to do so. Harper did testify, however, that at least by Tuesday he advised Campau that he would take the car, and that Campau told him that he (Campau) was 'responsible for the car being gone' and for Harper to 'get down there and pay for it.'
Harper did not return the car nor did he come in to pay for it at the appointed time. Upon learning of the transaction, one of the appellants instructed Campau to go out and either get the car or get the money. Evidently before this had been accomplished, Harper struck down the appellee while driving the car, on Thursday, January 19, 1950. When they learned of the accident, appellants' manager telephoned and asked the investigating officer where the car was located and if he could get the car and was informed that he could, so long as he showed the proper papers on it, to which appellants' manager replied that he would. It was also shown that the appellants filed embezzlement charges against Harper seven days after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Taylor–Christensen
...certificate, which appellant contends R.S. Evans has not complied with. The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673,Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So.2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ragg......
-
Motor Credit Corp. v. Woolverton
...of sale does not prevent the passage of title from the seller to the buyer. See Palmer v. R. S. Evans, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 635; Ragg v. Hurd, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 673; House v. Hodges, Ark.1957, 299 S.W.2d 201; Rush v. Smitherman, Tex.Civ.App.1956, 294 S.W.2d 873; H. G. Williams Motor Co. v. Z......
-
Woodard v. Chesley (In re Chesley)
...and whether there was a transfer of ownership even if not registered with the state. Geico, 595 Fed.Appx. at 905.44 Ragg v. Hurd, 60 So.2d 673, 674 (Fla.1952).45 Hurd, 60 So.2d at 674.46 917 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).47 Id. at 365.48 Hartzog, 917 So.2d at 364–65 (citations omitted). See......
-
Palmer v. R. S. Evans, Jacksonville, Inc.
...certificate, which appellant contends R. S. Evans has not complied with. The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673, Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So.2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ra......