The Washington times., 1920-07-31
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
Disagreements of Courts OF
Various States Feature Motor
Car Decisions.
ny Our Legal Corre.poadent.

In a preceding article attention was
called To cases In New YORK ana
Michigan dealing with the question OF
the liability OF motor transfer com
panies for goods delivered 10 them
and lost through thefts on the part
OF the companies employees. Fun re-
ports OF these cases Dust now avail
able), show the decisions TO be IT.
reconcilable. The question at issue
was whether the valuation placed by
the owner upon his goods at the time
OF delivery to the transfer company
was binding upon him, where TIE
actual value OF the goods was much
greater. In the New York case IL
was decided that the valuation so
fixed was absolutely binding on the
owner, even where the goods were
stolen by the company's chauffeurs'
on the ground that the act OF under
valuing the goods was fraud on the
company. for the purpose OF obtaining
lower transportation rate. The
Michigan supreme court decided that
the owner IL entitled TO recover the
actual value OF his goods, regardless
of the valuation given the company.
1t 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 II in the receipt, but
also where the company merely Is
sues printed receipt containing
provision that 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 a r.le, 80 great
would be the opportunity for fraud
Ton the part of the companies) that
public policy will not permit prac-
tice so manifestly calculated to In
vite 1t" In answer TO the argument
that the shipper has accepted the
stated valuation by voluntarily ac-
cepting the receipt containing 1t, the
the power of the individual to barter
away the right to protection inherent
in the general public"
A recent decision OF the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia dis
cusses both of the above rules, and
adopts the Michigan rule as the one
more consonant with abstract justice.
The courts of practically all OF the
States are agreed that a repairman
has a lien on an automobile for labor
and necessary parts furnished by him
in the repair OF the car. though thls
lien does not extend to such auxiliary
items as gasoline, grease, etc, fur-
nished to the owner as part OF the
same transaction. There Is consider
able diversity of opinion on the part
of the courts, however, as to the
question of priorities as between such
lien and the claim of one who holds
chattel mortgage on the car me
mortgage being prior in date TO the
claim of the repairmal.
AS pointed out in preceding articles
, the Courts of Ohio and Maryland,
among others, give the repairman's
lien priority over such a mortgage
where the value Of the car IS not sur
ficient to pay both claims. case
recently decided by the supreme court
of South Carolina denies this priority,
holding that the claim which is prior
! in date must prevail
In practically all OF the states
there is a 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, SO as to render
the stock liable to their claims even
after delivery to the buyer. unless