Shearin v. Globe Indem. Co., 289

• Decision Date: 16 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 289,289
• Citation: 148 S.E.2d 560,267 N.C. 505
• Parties: Mary Pridgen SHEARIN, Administratrix of the Estate of John Jacob Pridgen, Deceased v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 560

148 S.E.2d 560

267 N.C. 505

Mary Pridgen SHEARIN, Administratrix of the Estate of John Jacob Pridgen, Deceased v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 289.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 16, 1966.

Vernon F. Daughtridge and Narron, Holdford & Holdford, Wilson, for plaintiff appellant.

Gardner, Connor & Lee, Wilson, for defendant appellee.

BOBBITT, Justice.

Whether the judgment of involuntary nonsuit at March 1960 Civil Term in the action against Auto Exchange, Inc., was entered on account of the insufficiency of the evidence as to ownership of the car by Auto Exchange, Inc., Or operation thereof by Speight, Or actionable negligence of Speight Or that Speight was the agent of Auto Exchange, Inc., does not appear. Suffice to say, adjudication that the evidence then offered was insufficient, for undisclosed reasons, to warrant submission of that case to the jury, is not a bar to this action.

Nor is there merit in plaintiff's plea that Globe, by defending the action against Auto Exchange, Inc., waived its right to deny coverage as to Speight. Globe's policy covered the liability, if any, of Auto Exchange, Inc., the named insured. Globe defended the action against the estate of Speight under full reservation of its right to deny coverage as to Speight. See Jamestown Mutual Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 266 N.C. 430, 146 S.E.2d 410.

The garage liability policy issued by Globe to Auto Exchange, Inc., does not list or describe any specific automobile(s). It covers 'any automobile owned by or in charge of the named insured' and used principally 'for the purpose of an automobile sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place, and all operations necessary or incidental thereto.' A person operating Such an automobile is covered by the policy if his actual use thereof is with the permission of the named insured. Godwin v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co., 256 N.C. 730, 125 S.E.2d 23; Luther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 262 N.C. 716, 138 S.E.2d 402.

The crucial question is whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find that the 1952 Chevrolet involved in the accident of May 12, 1958, was then owned by Auto Exchange, Inc., 'and used principally in the above defined operations' (automobile sales agency, etc.), and that its actual use by Speight on May 12, 1958, was with the permission of Auto Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff offered in evidence the adverse examination of C. M. Link, Claims Manager and Adjuster for Globe. The pertinent facts disclosed therein and the exhibits attached thereto are set forth in our preliminary statement.

A witness for plaintiff, Mrs. Florence L. Sutton, testified in substance, except when quoted, as follows: During 1958 she was secretary-treasurer of Dixie Auto Finance Company (Dixie). Early in 1958, Dixie financed for Wortle Brantley (Brantley) a 1952 Chevrolet Brantley had purchased from Auto Exchange, Inc. Brantley's note to Dixie was endorsed by Boyette, individually. The title certificate in Dixie's possession showed the 1952 Chevrolet was registered in the Department of Motor Vehicles in the name of Brantley and that Dixie had a lien thereon executed by Brantley. Brantly was unable to make the payments and requested Dixie 'to repossess the car.' Brantley did not execute an assignment of his title or 'sign any sort of consent for surrender of the car.' Dixie's lien thereon was not foreclosed. Boyette 'wholesaled this car' with Dixie. Boyette signed a 'wholesale note' to Dixie against this particular car 'approximately April of 1958' and paid Dixie the balance on the Brantley note. Mrs. Sutton testified: 'The vehicles that were wholesaled by T. R. Boyette were the vehicles of Boyette Auto Exchange, Inc.' In April 1958, Boyette, in a telephone conversation, told her 'he had made a sale or disposition of that automobile,' and asked her to finance the car for Speight. Dixie refused to do so. Boyette paid off the 'wholesale note' in June 1958, at which time the title certificate issued to Brantley was delivered to him.

An unsigned accident report dated May , 1958, plaintiff's Trial Exhibit No. 11, identified 'Boyette Auto Exchange' as the policyholder; and under the heading, 'Insured Automobile,' the following appears: 'Owner's name if not owned by Policyholder: Clarence Haywood Speight.'

The foregoing is a summary of plaintiff's admitted evidence. It must be considered in the light of the fact that '(p)rior to 1961 a purchaser of a motor vehicle acquired title notwithstanding the failure of his vendor to deliver vendor's certificate of title or vendee's failure to apply for a new certificate.' Community Credit Co. of Lenoir, Inc. v. Norwood, 257 N.C. 87, 90, 125 S.E.2d 369, 371, and cases cited.

The admitted evidence tends to show Auto Exchange, Inc., had sold the 1952 Chevrolet to Speight prior to May 12, 1958. Hence, it was not sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit.

Plaintiff offered in evidence the adverse examinations of Boyette taken July 12, 1958, and December 1, 1959, in the prior action against Auto Exchange, Inc. Defendant's objections thereto were sustained. Plaintiff contends the admitted And excluded evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for nonsuit.

The testimony of Boyette on said adverse examinations related to the ownership of the 1952 Chevrolet on May 12, 1958, and to the circumstances with reference to Speight's possession and use thereof. Plaintiff contends this testimony was competent because Auto Exchange, Inc., was defended in said action by Globe, and Globe's attorneys were present and cross-examined Boyette. Defendant contends this testimony was incompetent and properly excluded. Suffice to say, a serious question exists as to the competency of this evidence; and authority bearing directly on the question was not cited in the briefs nor discovered by our research. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to consider whether this testimony, if competent, would suffice to require submission to the jury.

On said adverse examinations, Boyette testified in substance, except when quoted, as follows:

Auto Exchange, Inc., obtained possession of the 1952 Chevrolet from Dixie. It borrowed the money from Dixie 'on this car' to pay off...