Case ID: ohio-st_115/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Helwig v. The Warren State Bank.
    
      Motor vehicles — Filing bill of sale as notice of grantee’s rights —Section 6810-8 et seq., General Code — Bill of sale filed by bank to secure loan.
    
    (No. 19527
    Decided June 8, 1926.)
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Trumbull county.
    This is a proceeding to reverse the Court of Appeals of Trumbull county. The action originally was one in replevin by the Warren State Bank to obtain possession of a certain automobile claimed by the plaintiff in error, W. W. Helwig, to be his property. The matter was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which is as follows:
    On March 31, 1924, one Snyder obtained a loan from the Warren State Bank, and signed a note for $1,000, payable in 60 days. Snyder gave a bill of sale to the bank for the automobile in question, which was filed by the bank with the clerk of courts of Trumbull county, pursuant to the statute. April 17, 1924, Snyder sold the car in question to the plaintiff in error, W. W. Helwig. Helwig filed his bill of sale with the clerk of courts of Trumbull county on May 1st of that year. On May 31st the bank renewed its note, stating that the automobile in question was deposited as collateral security for the loan. June 26th, following, Snyder left for parts unknown, without having paid the bank. July 8th the bank notified Helwig of its claim upon the car in question, and began its replevin suit. The common pleas court decided in favor of the bank and the Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. Error is now prosecuted to this court to reverse the judgment.
    
      Messrs. Harrington, DeFord, Huxley & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Messrs. Guarnieri & McVicJcer, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

The paramount question in this case is whether or not the title and rights of the Warren State Bank in the automobile in controversy are superior to those of the plaintiff in error.

The basis of the bank’s claim is its full compliance with the Automobile Sale and Transfer Act, being Sections 6310-3 to 6310-14, inclusive, General Code. It is conceded that, immediately upon receiving the bill of sale, the bank filed the same, according to Section 6310-10, General Code, as one “to whom title has in any manner been passed to a motor vehicle.” This was notice to the world of its rights in the premises, and whosoever became a holder of an interest in the automobile described in such bill of sale took title thereto subject to the rights of the bank.

Plaintiff in error claims that this bill of sale should have been filed as a chattel mortgage in the office of the county recorder, and be regarded as such, and, the automobile in question being in possession of Snyder, the bank’s claims should be second to a purchaser from Snyder under such circumstances; there being no agency clause contained in the bill of sale.

Under the construction which we will give Sections 6310-4 to 6310-14, inclusive, General Code, we cannot concur in such view, and our conclusion is that under this record the title and rights of the bank are superior to those of the plaintiff in error. It follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals in affirming the judgment of the common pleas court in the replevin action was right, and the same should be, and hereby is, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.