Thomas v. Mullins

• Decision Date: 19 September 1929
• Citation: 153 Va. 383
• Parties: S. G. THOMAS v. MINNIE MULLINS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 383

153 Va. 383

S. G. THOMAS v. MINNIE MULLINS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 19, 1929.

Absent, West, J.

1. AUTOMOBILES — Motor Vehicle Registration Act of 1926 — Sale of Automobile — When Title Passes — Failure to Comply with Motor Vehicle Registration Act — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by the buyer of an automobile against the seller, a dealer. The automobile in question was destroyed by fire while still in possession of the dealer and this action was by the buyer against the dealer for the purchase price paid for the automobile. The trial court instructed that notwithstanding the dealer agreed to sell and the buyer to buy the automobile in question and the buyer paid for it, yet if the jury believed from the evidence that no assignment of title to and notice of transfer of said automobile had been executed on the form prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner as provided by statute, and delivered by the dealer to the buyer at the time of the fire which destroyed said automobile, then the contract of sale was merely executory and not executed and the title to the said automobile, at the time of the fire, had not passed to the buyer and they must find for plaintiff.

Held: No error.

2. STATUTES — Construction — Intention. — In construing a statute it is the primary endeavor of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.

3. AUTOMOBILES — Motor Vehicle Registration Act of 1926 — Not a Revenue Measure — Object of the Statute. — The motor vehicle registration act of 1926, while providing incidentally for the payment of certain fees, is not primarily a revenue raising measure. As interpreted and construed by the legislature, its general purpose is to make uniform the law of this State in so far as it affects the regulation of motor vehicles; the issuance of certificates of title to prevent larceny thereof; to define the duties of the Commissioner; and to provide penalties for its infraction.

4. AUTOMOBILES — Motor Vehicle Registration Act of 1926 — Requirements Mandatory. — Unless the mandatory requirements of the motor vehicle registration act (Acts 1926, page 277, chapter 149), relating to notice of sale to the Motor Vehicle Commissioner, application by purchaser for certificate of title and registration by the department and issuance of certificate of title to the owner, are complied with, the delinquent party does not fall within the beneficial provisions of the statute. A non-compliance with the statute subjects the seller to fine and imprisonment and defeats the recovery based upon a contract obnoxious to the statutory requirements. The imposition of the penalty is to protect the public against fraud and to compel the proper registration of titles.

5. AUTOMOBILES — Motor Vehicle Registration Act of 1926 — Sale of Automobiles — Dealer Must Deliver Assignment of Title to Buyer. — Under the motor vehicle registration act (Acts 1926, page 277, chapter 149), in order to complete the sale upon his part, it is essential that the seller conform to the statutory requirement by delivering to the buyer a proper assignment of title.

6. AUTOMOBILES — Motor Vehicle Registration Act — Police Regulation — Provisions Mandatory. — The motor vehicle registration act of 1926 (Acts 1926, page 277, chapter 149), is essentially a police regulation, enacted primarily for the protection of the public and its provisions are mandatory in their terms.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Wise county, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for money. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

O. M. Vicars, for the plaintiff in error.

Morton & Parker, for the defendant in error.

CAMPBELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error (defendant in the trial court) is here complaining of a judgment in the principal sum of $1,325.00 rendered against him in favor of Minnie Mullins (hereinafter called plaintiff), in the Circuit Court of Wise county.

On the 19th day of July, 1927, plaintiff sold to the defendant certain real estate in consideration of the sum of $3,000.00, the receipt of which is acknowledged in the deed of conveyance. As a part of the purchase price, defendant, who was an automobile dealer, was to deliver to plaintiff an automobile to be selected by plaintiff from a number of automobiles owned by defendant, at the stipulated price of $1,325.00. On August 17, 1927, defendant's garage and his stock of automobiles were destroyed by fire.

Three contentions are made by the plaintiff: (1) That she did not select an automobile pursuant to agreement; (2) that defendant did not deliver or offer to deliver an automobile to her; (3) that the contract of sale, in any event, was not executed, due to the failure of defendant to comply with the Virginia motor vehicle act regulating the sale of automobiles.

Defendant contends that there was an executed sale of a Wolverine car, selected by plaintiff and stored by direction of plaintiff in defendant's garage which was destroyed by fire.

Upon the conflicting evidence the jury were precluded from passing, as the trial court, after the introduction thereof upon motion of plaintiff, instructed the jury as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that, although you may believe from the evidence that S. G. Thomas agreed to sell and Minnie Mullins agreed to buy the Wolverine automobile in question at a price of $1,325.00, and that Minnie Mullins paid to S. G. Thomas the purchase price thereof by giving him credit for that amount on the purchase price of the real estate sold by her to him, yet, if you further believe from the evidence that no assignment of title to and notice of transfer of said automobile had been executed on the form prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner as provided by statute and delivered by S. H. Thomas to Minnie Mullins at the time of the fire which destroyed said automobile, then the contract of sale was merely executory and not executed, and the title to the said automobile, at the time of the fire, had not passed to Minnie Mullins but remained in S. G. Thomas, and you must find for the plaintiff the sum of $1,325.00, with interest thereon from the 19th day of August, 1927."

It is a conceded fact that no assignment of title to and notice of transfer of any automobile had been executed on the form prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner as provided by statute, and delivered by defendant to the plaintiff prior to the fire.

It is assigned as error that the court erred in giving to the jury the foregoing instruction. The correctness of this instruction depends upon a proper construction of the motor vehicle registration act, enacted by the legislature in 1926 (Acts 1926, chapter 149). The title of the act conforms to the constitutional requirements, and sets forth the purposes of the act, which are: "* * * to continue the office of Motor Vehicle Commissioner; to provide for his election; to prescribe his powers and duties; to protect the title of motor vehicles; to provide for the registration of titles thereto and the issuance of certificates of titles; to prescribe the effect of such registration; to provide for the licensing of motor vehicles and chauffeurs; to provide penalties;...