Case ID: njl_99/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDITH ROE, RESPONDENT, v. WALTER G BONHAM, APPELLANT.
    Submitted July 9, 1923
    Decided October 5, 1923.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “This is a suit in replevin for an automobile. The plaintiff is a trustee in bankruptcy of the A. L. Kirb}r Company. The defendant Ellis ivas an officer of that company. The Kirby company bought -the automobile and had a hill of sale for it in compliance with the act of 1919. Pamph L., p. 357. This act makes it rmlawful to sell or purchase any motor vehicle except in the manner and subject to- the conditions therein provided. One of the conditions is that in all sales or purchases of a motor vehicle direct from the manufacturer or through an agent or agency of such manufacturer, there shall be issued to the purchaser a manufacturer’s hill of sale containing the manufacturer’s number on the engine or motor of the vehicle sold. In all other sales it is required that the original hill of sale shall he assigned by the seller to the purchaser by an assignment witnessed by two persons and acknowledged by the seller before a notary public, and all such assignments shall at all times he kept and attached to the original manufacturer’s bill of sale. These provisions are obviously intended to assist in protecting automobiles from the danger of theft.
    “We see no¡ reason to doubt their validity. The Kirby company had a hill of sale in compliance with the statute. The defendant never had. Of course the hill of sale for the automobile was properly admitted in evidence. It was a necessary document of title. We think the questions objected to in grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 were properly overruled. We are unable to see what relevancy the proffered evidence had to the case.
    “We find no error in the record. The judgment must be affirmed.”
    Eor the appellant, Bex A. Donnelly.
    
    Eor the respondent, LeRoy W. Loder.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion oE the Supreme Court.

For affirmance- — The Chauceluor, Chief Justice, Trehc hard, Parker, Bergkh, Minturh, White, Heppeuheimer, Acicersoh, Van Buskirk, JJ. 10.

Fur reversal — None.