Case Name: AUTO TRUCK CO. v. WAKEMAN
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 167
Docket Number: No. 699
Parties: AUTO TRUCK CO. v. WAKEMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 167–167

Head Matter:
No. 114
AUTO TRUCK CO. v. WAKEMAN
Ohio Court of Appeals, Summit County
No. 699.
Nov. 29, 1922
AUTOMOBILES — (1) Attachment — Intervention by a stranger to the suit — (2) Failure of vendor to comply with Pennsylvania statute did not void the sale."
This opim on has not been published elsewhere.
Attorneys — Jonathan Taylor, for Auto Co.; Robert C. Ryder and Edwin F. Voris, for Wakeman.

Opinion:
PARDEE, J.
Epitomized Opinion
The Auto Co. filed its petition in the lower court asking for a judgment against the defendant on a Pennsylvania judgment, and at the same tiipe filed an affidavit for attachment and levied upon a truck which it claimed the defendant owned. His father, who was not a party to the suit, filed his motion in the case claiming he was its owner and asked that the attachment be discharged and the truck returned. The trial court dissolved the attachment and ordered a release of the truck. Error is prosecuted to reverse this judgment. Held:
1. The trial court was right, under 11370 GC., in entertaining the motion of the father and hearing the evidence thereon, he not being a party to the suit, who had the right to elect to proceed as he did, or under 11858 and 11741 GC.
2. While the vendors of the truck to the father did not comply with the law of Pennsylvania regulating the sale of second-hand motor vehicles, and may have committed a misdemeanor, the sale was not void, and whatever title they may have had in the truck was conveyed to the father.