Case Name: FRANKEL CHEVROLET CO v. H T LATHY MOTOR CO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-05-13
Citations: 7 Ohio Law Abs. 361
Docket Number: No 9966
Parties: FRANKEL CHEVROLET CO v H T LATHY MOTOR CO
Judges: Vickery, PJ, Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 7
Pages: 361–361

Head Matter:
FRANKEL CHEVROLET CO v H T LATHY MOTOR CO
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No 9966.
Decided May 13, 1929
E H Meisel and Henry Galen, Cleveland, for Frankel Co.
John A Lombard, Cleveland for Lathy Co.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court in deciding as it did, held that the absence of the bill of sale to plaintiff in error, in view of the requirements of the statute, rendered its claim to the possession of the' automobile invalid despite the fact that the automobile was physically delivered to it. The case of Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Todino, 111 O. S. 274, syllabus, reads as follows:
(Here follows quotation)
In the opinion the court cites the case of Building Assoc, v Clark, 43 O. S. 427.
Further quoting from the opinion in the case of Bellidy v. Franklin Bank of Columbus, 16 O. 533, it was held:
(Here follows quotation)
In explicit terms the supreme court laid down the rule that no title to an automobile is conveyed in the absence of a bill of sale, and of course we feel bound by that decision. One is inclined to doubt the soundness of the reasoning in the case of Insurance Co. v. Todino, because at first blush it seems to unduly interfere with the right of individuals to freely contract with each other but regardless of our own inclination the decision of Insurance Co. v. Todino supra, sustains the judgment of the Municipal Court arid it is therefore affirmed.
Vickery, PJ, Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.