Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-08-24
LEGAL POINTS FOR
OWNERS OF AUTOS
Courts Of Various States Disagree
in Decisions in
Cases.

In preceding article attention was
called to cases in New York and Mich
xau dealing with the question of the
liability OF motor transfer companies for
goods delivered to them and lost through
thefts on the part of the companies
employees. Full reports of these cases,
Just now available, show the decisions
to bic irreconcilable The question at
issue was whether the valuation placed
by the owner upon his goods at the
time Of delivery to the transfer COM
pany was binding upon him where the
actual value of the goods was much
greater.
In the New York case it was decided
that the valuation 80 fixed was abso-
lutely binding on the owner, even where
the goods were stolen by the COM
pany's chautfeurs, on the ground that
the act of undertaking the goods was a
fraud on the company for the purpose
Of obtaining lower transportation rate.
The Michigan Supreme Court decided
that the owner is entitled to recover the
actual value of his goods, regardless of
the valuation given the company.
IL should be understood that the rules
In the above respective States apply
not only where the company specifically
asks the value of the goods and states
IL IN the receipt but also where the COM
pany merely issues a printed receipt con,
tanning a provision that it is understood
that the goods are not valued at over
stated amount.
The Michigan court, commenting on
the New York rule, forcibly remarks
that under such rule $50 great would
be the opportunity for fraud Ton the
part of the companies) that public policy
will not permit practice so manIfestly
calculated To invite it." In answer to the
argument that the shipper has accepted
the stated valuation by voluntarily ac-
cepting the receipt containing 1t the
court further said: 1T is not within the
power of the individual TO barter away the
right To protection inherent In the gen.
eral public"
A recent decision of the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia discusses
both of the above rules and adopts the
Michigan rule as the one more consonant
with abstract justice.
In practically all of the States there
Is n statute known as the "sales IN bulk
law" Under the terms of this law the
sale of "A business is declared TO be VOID
as against the creditors of the seller, 80
ss To render the stock liable to their
claims even after delivery to the buyer,
unless certain formalities are complied
with. Recent decisions point out that
these statutes apply to transactions IN
voiving sales of garages. 1t Is lndispen-
sable in transactions of this kind, that
the formalities of the "sales in bulk
law be fully complied with. Otherwise
the buyer will find himself at the mercy
of the creditors of the seller.
The object of the law is to circumvent
secret sales of going concerns, with the
consequent loss of tangible assets upon
which the creditors could enforce their
clalms. The law IN question, among
other things, requires that the pur-
chaser before consummating the trans
action must obtain full list of all credit
ors of the seller and give them certain
period of notice OF the intended purchase.
There are many other formal details,
and a prudent person will always employ
. lawyer to safeguard his interests when
entering into transaction OF the KIND
In question.
The courts of practically all of the
States arc agreed that a repalrman has
a lien on an automobile for labor and
necessary parts furnished by him IN the
repair OF the car, though this lien does
not extend TO suck auxiliary items as
gasolene, grease, &c, furnished to the
owner as a part of the same transaction.
There is considerable diversity of opln-
ion on the part of the courts, however,
as 10 the questtoa of prioritles as be-
tween such a lien and the claim of one
who holds a chattel mortgage on the
car, the mortgage being prior In date to
the claim of the repairman.
As pointed out In preceding articles,
the courts of Ohio and Maryland, among
others, give the repairman's hen priority
over such a mortgage where the value OF
the car is not sufficient TO pay both claims.
A case recently decided by the Supreme
Court of South Carolina denies this
priority, holding that the claim which is
prior in date must prevail.
MANY recent cases have decided that
the owner of an automobile Is liable for
the negligence of his son resulting in
anothers injury where the son is per-
mitted to drive the car, even for his own
pleasure. In a case recently decided IN
Iowa the question was whether In such
instances the indemnity policy which the
father carries on the car protects him
against such claims for damages. In
other words, whether he can compel the
insurance company to reimburse hum
for damages of this class that he is com
PEELED to pay. The insurance company
contended that its policy contemplated
only accidents that occurred when the
car was being driven by the father or
BY some one on his behalf or III connec-
ton with his business. The court, how
ever, refused TO 80 limit the policy and
held that the owner was protected against
\ a. L, %