Court Opinion

ID: 9857978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:11:03.310742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:18.993494
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
In the application for rehearing and in. brief in support thereof, counsel for plaintiff urge- error in the statement in the opinion of the Court concerning the rule of evidence which relates to> the knowledge of the foreign mortgagee of the removal of the mortgaged automobile to the State of Louisiana and it is contended that the statement that the burden rested on the plaintiff to prove that it was without such knowledge is in direct conflict with the ruling in the recent case of Cobb v. Davidson, 219 La. 434, 53 So.2d 225, to the effect that the burden of proving the existence of such knowledge by a preponderance of the evidence is on the defendant.
The ruling, as made in the cited case, is. not applicable to the case presently before us for the reason that in that case the ques- . *174tion of title, only, of the automobile, was involved whereas in this case, besides the title, there is also involved the question of an unrecorded foreign chattel mortgage. Moreover, albeit the opinion in the cited case contains a rather positive declaration to the effect that the burden of proving the existence of knowledge on the part of the seller, of the car’s removal from the foreign State rested on the defendant, it appears from' the statement itself that the burden was thus placed on the defendant because of the special circumstances of the case arising out of the provisions of Article 388 of the Code of Practice relating to actions in warranty. That is made clear by the Court’s specific reference to that very Article.
For the reasons stated the rehearing applied for is refused.