State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, No. 31009.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtFitzsimmons
Citation72 S.W.2d 111
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of LESTER O. ISAACSON, Doing Business as ST. JOSEPH TRUCK and TRACTOR COMPANY, Relator, v. FRANCIS H. TRIMBLE, EWING C. BLAND and HENRY L. ARNOLD, Judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Docket NumberNo. 31009.
Decision Date17 May 1934
72 S.W.2d 111
STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of LESTER O. ISAACSON, Doing Business as ST. JOSEPH TRUCK and TRACTOR COMPANY, Relator,
v.
FRANCIS H. TRIMBLE, EWING C. BLAND and HENRY L. ARNOLD, Judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
No. 31009.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division Two, May 17, 1934.

Certiorari.

RECORD QUASHED.

Randolph & Randolph for relator.

The court erred in granting a new trial on the ground of error in the refusal of defendant's Instructions B and C. Because the chattel mortgage on which this action is based is legal and valid on its face, and was given in consideration of the compromise and settlement of a former replevin suit between the same parties, and is therefore, supported by the best consideration. Wood v. K.C. Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 564; Reinhart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 538; Stephens v. Spiers, 25 Mo. 390; Livingstone v. Dugan, 20 Mo. 102; Reilly v. Chouquette, 18 Mo. 226; Mullanthy v. Riley, 10 Mo. 495. Because defendant in defense of this suit cannot raise disputed issues of fact (as hypothecated in Instruction C), that were compromised and settled by settlement of a former lawsuit between the same parties. Rivers v. Blom, 163 Mo. 442; Draper v. Owsley, 15 Mo. 616.

FITZSIMMONS, C.


This case comes to the writer by reassignment. It is certiorari to the Kansas City Court of Appeals. The question before us is whether there is conflict between controlling decisions of this court and the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Lester O. Isaacson (plaintiff and appellant) v. Elvis W. Van Gundy (defendant and respondent), reported in 48 S.W. (2d) 208. The facts and

72 S.W.2d 112

the questions of law upon appeal are thus stated in the opinion (Isaacson v. Van Gundy, 48 S.W. (2d) 208):

"This is an action in replevin to recover the possession of three motor trucks. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court granted defendant a new trial on the ground that it erred in refusing to give defendant's peremptory instruction at the close of all the testimony and in refusing defendant's Instruction C. Plaintiff has appealed.

"The facts show that defendant, who lived at Fairfax, was engaged in the trucking business; that on July 24th, 1928, or August 2nd of that year, defendant purchased of plaintiff a GMC truck. This truck had formerly been owned by one Sie Rolston of Ravenwood and was registered in his name. When plaintiff purchased the truck from Rolston the certificate of title was properly assigned and delivered to the plaintiff by Rolston. This certificate was duly assigned to the defendant by the plaintiff and delivered to him on or about August 2nd, 1928.

"Defendant gave plaintiff a chattel mortgage in the sum of $2,190 upon the truck, dated July 24th, 1928. Defendant having failed to make the payments provided in the mortgage plaintiff brought a replevin suit and took possession of the truck under the writ of replevin issued therein. The evidence shows that this replevin suit was brought `under this mortgage.' Thereafter and while said suit was pending on April 9th, 1929, the suit was compromised and the parties entered into a written agreement by which the suit was dismissed and defendant gave plaintiff a note in the sum of $2,190, and to secure the note executed a chattel mortgage upon said truck and two other trucks. Defendant failed to pay certain installments falling due under the terms of this last mentioned mortgage and this suit was instituted to recover possession of the trucks mentioned in said mortgage.

[1] "One of the main controversies in the case is whether or not the statute concerning the sale and transfer of motor vehicles was complied with at the time of the sale of the GMC truck to defendant. This statute provides that unless at the time of the delivery of a motor vehicle there shall pass between the parties a certificate of ownership with an assignment thereof the sale `shall be fraudulent and void.'" [See Laws 1927, p. 313.] It is well settled that unless the certificate is assigned and passed to the buyer of the motor vehicle at the time of its delivery the sale is absolutely void and no title to the vehicle passes. [State ex rel. v. Cox, 306 Mo. 536; Sullivan v. Gault, 299 S.W. 1116; Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 6 S.W. (2d) 66.]

"It is the contention of the plaintiff that the undisputed testimony shows that the sale was completed in St. Joseph on August 2nd; that at that time the certificate of title duly assigned was delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant contends that the undisputed testimony tends to show that the sale and delivery of the truck was had at Fairfax on the evening of July 24th, 1928, and, it being admitted that the certificate of title was not delivered until August 2nd, the statute was not complied with. Therefore, it is claimed that the settlement of the first replevin suit having grown out of the prior illegal contract and mortgage and this illegal contract and mortgage, being the foundation of the first replevin suit out of which the contract of settlement grew, there was no valid consideration for the latter and the chattel mortgage, upon which this suit is based, is void and plaintiff cannot maintain the action."

The Court of Appeals, in its opinion, then stated at length the substance of the evidence touching the question whether the sale was completed and the certificate of title delivered at the same time or at different times. The Court of Appeals reached the following conclusion upon the review of the evidence: "Therefore, there being conflict in the testimony as to whether or not the certificate of title was delivered to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Duncan v. Black, No. 7737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1959
    ...17 F.Supp. 723; see 15 C.J.S. Compromise and Settlement Sec. 36c, pp. 758-759. 16 State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111, 114; Gilbert v. Edwards, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 611, 17 Gilbert v. Edwards, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 611, 619. 18 Section 510.310, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; Pi......
  • Robinson v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Employees, No. 26647.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Noviembre 1944
    ...to the liability of the debtor. Zinke v. Knights of Maccabees, 275 Mo. 660, 205 S.W. 1; State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111; Wood v. Kansas City Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6; Creason v. Harding, 344 Mo. 452, loc. cit. 469, 126 S.W.2d 1179; 183 S.W.2d 412 ......
  • Foster v. ætna Life Ins. Co., No. 26233.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 2 Febrero 1943
    ...of United Commercial travelers of America v. Shain, 339 Mo. 903, 98 S.W. 2d 597, and State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111. Both cases, in effect, hold that where a claimant, in a suit for an alleged balance due on a claim, attacks a compromise settlement of the clai......
  • Universal Credit Co. v. Story, No. 6044.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 1 Mayo 1939
    ...and void. Some of these cases are: Evens v. Home Ins. Co., 231 Mo. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111; State ex rel. v. Trimble et al., 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111; Anderson v. Arnold-Strong Motor Co., 229 Mo.App. 1170, 88 S.W.2d 419; Hoshaw v. Fenton, Mo.App., 110 S.W.2d 1140; Perkins v. Bostic, 227 Mo.App......
4 cases
  • Duncan v. Black, No. 7737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1959
    ...17 F.Supp. 723; see 15 C.J.S. Compromise and Settlement Sec. 36c, pp. 758-759. 16 State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111, 114; Gilbert v. Edwards, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 611, 17 Gilbert v. Edwards, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 611, 619. 18 Section 510.310, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; Pi......
  • Robinson v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Employees, No. 26647.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Noviembre 1944
    ...to the liability of the debtor. Zinke v. Knights of Maccabees, 275 Mo. 660, 205 S.W. 1; State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111; Wood v. Kansas City Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6; Creason v. Harding, 344 Mo. 452, loc. cit. 469, 126 S.W.2d 1179; 183 S.W.2d 412 ......
  • Foster v. ætna Life Ins. Co., No. 26233.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 2 Febrero 1943
    ...of United Commercial travelers of America v. Shain, 339 Mo. 903, 98 S.W. 2d 597, and State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111. Both cases, in effect, hold that where a claimant, in a suit for an alleged balance due on a claim, attacks a compromise settlement of the clai......
  • Universal Credit Co. v. Story, No. 6044.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 1 Mayo 1939
    ...and void. Some of these cases are: Evens v. Home Ins. Co., 231 Mo. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111; State ex rel. v. Trimble et al., 335 Mo. 213, 72 S.W.2d 111; Anderson v. Arnold-Strong Motor Co., 229 Mo.App. 1170, 88 S.W.2d 419; Hoshaw v. Fenton, Mo.App., 110 S.W.2d 1140; Perkins v. Bostic, 227 Mo.App......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT