Case Title: Paschal v. Hamilton

Citation: 363 So. 2d 1360

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1978-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
363 So. 2d 1360 (1978) Vail PASCHAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy HAMILTON and Geneva Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees. No. 50955. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 8, 1978. James E. Brown, Starkville, for plaintiff-appellant. Ben F. Hilbun, Jr., Charles T. Yoste, Starkville, for defendants-appellees. Before PATTERSON, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ. PATTERSON, Chief Justice, for the Court: Paschal filed suit in the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County for replevin of an automobile. The trial court directed a verdict for defendants Billy and Geneva Hamilton. The sole issue presented, one of first impression, in this Court is: Paschal was the owner of an automobile and advertised it for sale. A prospective buyer made an offer which was accepted. The following day the buyer appeared at Paschal's home and gave a check to Paschal's wife in exchange for the car and title. Subsequently the check was dishonored as a forgery. After the car had been resold several times, it was purchased by the Hamiltons from a used car dealer in Starkville, Mississippi. Paschal later located the car through law enforcement officials and brought this action for replevin. The Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code, Mississippi Code Annotated section 75-2-403 (1972) provides: It is clear on the facts that the original sale involved "goods [which] have been delivered under a transaction of purchase...." Therefore, 1(d) is controlling and good faith purchasers (here the Hamiltons) take a good title. While the Commercial Code rule may seem harsh, it is in line with the purposes of the Code, to promote commerce and business by simplifying and making uniform the law dealing with commercial transactions. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-1-102 (1972). See Matter of Samuels & Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir.1976); Hudiburg Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. Ponce, 17 Wis.2d 281, 116 N.W.2d 252 (1962). We also note that this rule is not inconsistent with prior cases holding that the purchaser of a stolen vehicle does not obtain good title, since there the transferor did not obtain the vehicle by "delivery under a transaction of purchase." Gurley v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 233 Miss. 58, 101 So. 2d 101 (1958) [stolen auto]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Estes, 345 So. 2d 265 (Miss. 1977) [stolen auto and forged bill of sale]. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. SMITH, P.J., ROBERTSON, P.J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.