Court Opinion

ID: 9576160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:21:19.558591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:25.314709
License: Public Domain

McDONOUGH, Chief Justice
(dissenting)-
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Henriod. I desire, however, to emphasize certain facts in the instant case, since I am convinced that the record reveals that the respective owners of the cars involved did nothing more than surrender possession thereof to a person who was known to the owner to be in the business of selling used cars. As pointed out in the prevailing opinion, Bruce, the used car dealer, orally agreed to pay the draft and thereby obtain the title certificate before he offered the Pontiac for re-sale in the one case, and in the other case, while there was no such oral agreement, it is clear from the stipulated facts that the same was intended by the parties. I am of the opinion that the better reasoned cases hold that entrusting possession of goods to one who habitually sells such goods does not, without more, create an estoppel. See Williston on Sales, Rev.Ed., Sec. 314, and cases there cited.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in each case.
CROCKETT, J., having disqualified himself did not participate herein.