Court Opinion

ID: 9720355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:27:30.816376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.538420
License: Public Domain

Bowen, J.
I. find that I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case. In my opinion Rubin Johns, who forceably took possession of the truck in question from the appellee Robinson, under the previous holdings of this court could not have asserted his title in the courts of this state as against such appellee Robinson, and it seems to me the effect of the majority holding in this case is to permit Johns to do indirectly and without process of law that which he could not have done by due process of law within the courts of this state. Nichols v. Bogda Motors (1948), 118 Ind. App. 156, 77 N. E. 2d 905. The courts of this state in Champa v. Consolidated Finance Corp. (1953), 231 Ind. 580, 110 N. E. 2d 289, and Nichols v. Bogda Motors, supra, have called attention to the fact that there are statutory provisions in Indiana which pertain especially to security interests in automobiles, and this court, in Nichols v. Bogda Motors, supra, in referring to a Michigan decision states:
“It is also significant that Justice Butzel in his opinion said: ‘While an occasional bona fide purchaser must suffer, under the majority rule, we do a greater good in protecting the financing of' chattels where the mortgagee has done everything in his power to protect his security . . .”
It would seem by reason of the foregoing decisions that in passing upon a question involving property rights in an automobile that the statutes pertaining to ' security interests in automobiles must be taken into *91account in applying the Uniform Sales Act to such transactions.
In my opinion the lower court erred in refusing the appellant a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. This evidence of the records in the office of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of Indiana when considered in the light of the counter affidavits of appellee and the facts shown by the record, in my opinion would have by necessity produced a different result in the court below. The majority opinion recites that by reason of the counter affidavits and the trial and finding on the matters presented in appellant’s motion for a new trial the trial court’s decision was final on these issues. However, in my opinion, the counter affidavits do not change nor alter the clear import of the documentary evidence sought to be offered by the appellant showing that Johns failed to take the necessary steps to protect any interest he may have had in this truck, thereby making it possible for Hyde to sell the truck to appellant without notice of liens or title infirmities, and he was therefore estopped from asserting his right to recover it from appellant or his privies. The counter affidavits of the Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles establish that his certification of the chain of title to the truck in question contained a recitation that the original of the Tennessee bill of sale revealed no liens or erasures or alterations. Such affidavit further asserts that “certain smudges or smears, the origin of which he is unable to explain or determine, and which may or may not have been the result of erasures or eradications”. The documentary evidence sought to be offered by appellant in the light of the counter affidavits in my opinion can only lead to the conclusion that Johns failed to take such steps which would make his lien enforceable *92against either the appellant or appellee. The oral testimony of Johns that he made a proper reservation of his lien fades into insignificance and incredulity when viewed in the light of the documentary evidence which appellant sought to have presented in the court below.
The reasoning in Nichols v. Bogda Motors, supra, and Champa v. Consolidated Finance Corp., supra, seems to compel the conclusion that Johns’ lien was not enforceable as against appellee and therefore appellant should not be held liable to appellee, and Johns should be compelled to pursue his remedy against Hyde, for whom he made it possible to perpetrate a fraud against appellant and appellee.
Note. — Reported in 129 N. E. 2d 868.