Walker v. Fitzgerald
| Decision Date | 14 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,397 |
| Citation | 196 N.W. 269,157 Minn. 319 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH WALKER v. BERT FITZGERALD AND OTHERS. THE BEARMAN FRUIT COMPANY, APPELLANT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Reargument Filed February 29, 1924
Action in replevin in the district court for Hennepin county to recover possession of certain property or for $1,500, the value thereof. The case was tried before Waite, J., who at the close of the testimony denied the motion of defendant fruit company for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for immediate possession of the property and found that its value at the commencement of the action was $865.70. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, Bearman Fruit Company appealed. Reversed.
Priority between mortgagee and good faith buyer of motor truck.
1. The holder of a chattel mortgage on a motor vehicle also held the certificate of title prescribed by chapter 510, Laws 1919. She made an unqualified assignment of the certificate to the mortgagors and they obtained a new certificate of title showing them to be the owners of the vehicle. As against a subsequent good faith purchaser from the mortgagors, it is doubtful whether the mortgagee could assert her rights under the mortgage.
Description of vehicle insufficient to charge third persons with notice.
2. The motor vehicle was described in the mortgage as "One type S. Wilcox, one-ton truck." The certificates of title described it as a Model 1 Wilcox truck bearing Motor Number 3051. Held that the description in the mortgage was not sufficient to charge third persons with notice that it covered the truck described in the certificates.
Description should identify the vehicle.
3. Motor vehicles should be described in mortgages, bills of sale and the like by giving such details as will furnish means of identifying the property as fully as possible.
Ell M Rosenstein, for appellant.
Walter P. Wolfe, for respondent.
Appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant Bearman Fruit Company for judgment or a new trial of an action to recover possession of a motor truck.
Plaintiff sold the truck to the defendants Fitzgerald and May, taking from them a chattel mortgage upon it, in which it was described as "One type S. Wilcox, one-ton truck." The mortgage recited that the mortgagors resided in Minneapolis and that the truck was in their possession. Plaintiff held an owner's certificate of title to a motor vehicle described in the certificate as follows: "Motor Number 3051, Make Wilcox, Model 1, * * * purchased from Wilcox Motor Co.," residing at Mpls. on the 15th day of October, 1917. She assigned the certificate to Fitzgerald & May by an instrument dated February 24, 1920, and acknowledged June 25, 1920, and reading in part as follows:
The original certificate was marked "Cancelled" and a new one was issued to Fitzgerald & May, reciting that they were the owners of the motor vehicle described in the original certificate, having purchased it from the Walker Transfer Company on February 24. On March 30, 1920, the Oneida Truck Sales Company, acting for Fitzgerald & May, sold the truck to the fruit company to which a certificate of ownership was duly issued. Thereafter the fruit company expended a substantial sum in repairing the truck.
Fitzgerald & May failed to pay the full amount of their indebtedness to plaintiff. By reason of their default, plaintiff resorted to the mortgage, and, for the purpose of foreclosing it, made a demand upon the fruit company for the truck. Upon its refusal to surrender possession, she brought this action.
Two questions are presented by the appeal: (1) What was the effect of plaintiff's assignment of her certificate of title to Fitzgerald & May? (2) Is the truck sufficiently described in the chattel mortgage to enable her to claim it as against a purchaser for value without actual notice of her rights?
1. The answer to the first question depends upon the effect to be given to chapter 510, p. 681, Laws 1919, chapter 53, p. 86, Laws 1919 (Sp. Sess.) now repealed by chapter 472, p. 780, Laws 1921. These acts were considered incidentally in Kelly-Duluth Co. v. Reed, 156 Minn. 39, 194 N.W. 103, but the question here presented was not involved in that case.
Section 6 of chapter 510 provided for the surrender and cancelation of the original certificate of title when a new one was issued to an assignee. Section 7 provided that a sale assignment or transfer of a motor...
To continue reading
Request your trial