Court Opinion

ID: 9661373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:37:22.036941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:27.971424
License: Public Domain

Yeager, J.,
concurring.
I voted for and fully agree with the foregoing opinion and decision. I have the opinion, however, that to it should be added something so that confusion may not flow from it because of at least one earlier decision of this court which is contrary to it and is effectually overruled but to which no reference is made. This I think should have been pointed out in the opinion herein.
To make the matter clear it becomes necessary to first refer back to the case of Blixt v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., 145 Neb. 717, 18 N. W. 2d 78. In that case, with reference to the subject of certificates of title to automobiles as evidence, this court said:
“This provision is part of an act the design of which is to control within fixed limits the use and operation *62of motor vehicles and to establish methods and'means for conveyance of title in order that the provisions for control and use may be made effective. It is a regulatory act under the police power. As such, no doubt, it is a valid exercise of the- police power.
“The provision goes far beyond a mere regulation under the police power. It amounts to an invasion of the right of contract, the impairment of rights of property and a restriction upon the right of the courts to weigh and consider evidence and to make determinations with regard to title and ownership of property and contractual rights and obligations.
“The* plaintiff has cited no case and we have found none the effect of which is to say that the legislature is empowered, under the guise of a police regulation, to validly , invade the field of contract and property rights and to restrict the courts in the exercise of their proper functions.
“We must therefore hold that this statutory provision may not be considered as in aid of plaintiff’s cause of action. The case must turn on other considerations.”
What was said there was directly and specifically overruled by the opinion in Loyal’s Auto Exchange, Inc. v. Munch, 153 Neb. 628, 45 N. W. 2d 913. With specific reference to the second paragraph quoted above from the opinion in Blixt v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., supra, it was said: “Insofar as the last statement is concerned we think we were in error. After a further study of the law, particularly in view of the holdings of other states under like or comparable statutes together with our previous holdings, we are now of the opinion that the act represents an authorized exercise of the police power by the Legislature to regulate the transfer of title and ownership of automobiles, which is a matter of public concern. As such it is not violative of any part of the' organic law of either the State of Nebraska or the United States especially with reference to the right of contract. *63the delegation or restriction of judicial powers, and due process of law.”
The effect of the, opinion in this case is to overrule what was said in Loyal’s Auto Exchange, Inc. v. Munch, supra, and to return to the holding in Blixt v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., supra. This change of position of the court, in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding for the future, should have been pointed out in the opinion which has been adopted.