Court Opinion

ID: 9660608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:16:51.171825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.907800
License: Public Domain

Morris, J.
On rehearing. After our decision had been hand.ed down the Supreme Court of Minnesota decided the case of Moberg v. Commercial Credit Corporation, 230 Minn 469, 42 NW 2d 54, which involves similar but distinguishable facts. We granted a rehearing after the defendant had petitioned therefor and called our attention to that case.
■ The automobile in this case was registered' in Minnesota, in the name Kuehl Bros. The defendant Jack -Dassenko who claims possession of the car as owner, purchased it from Lemke Motors and received with the car and as the instrument representing the title thereto, the registration card issued to Kuehl Bros., with the transfer on the .back sighed by'ltúéhl Bros., in blank, According to his testimony, in order to eliminate delay in transfer when he sold the car, he did not obtain a new card showing him to be the registered owner. The undisputed evidence shows that the practice of second hand car dealers was to carry the registration card with the transfer in blank in order to facilitate sales by eliminating the delay that would be occasioned by sending the old card in to the Secretary of State and obtaining a new one in the name of the new owner. It is clear that Jack Dassenko was following that practice when he obtained the car in question *422from Lemke Motors accompanied by the registration card in the name of Knehl Bros, with the transfer signed in blank and which he continued to hold in blank for the purpose of eliminating delay when he should resell.it. When he turned the car and card over to Lindemann Motors he placed in its possession the physical property and such indicia of title as he. had and which he no doubt intended would be turned over to the purchaser. Thus he acceded to and participated in the custom which recognized the registration card with the. transfer on the back signed by the registered title owner as being indicia of title when it accompanied the possession of the car described therein. Before taking the mortgage the plaintiffs manager examined both the car and the card in the possession of Lindemann Motors. In reliance thereon credit was extended. We adhere to our decision that the defendant is estopped from asserting the title as against the plaintiff who is a bona fide mortgagee for value.
Nuessle, C. J., Christianson, Crimson and Burke, JJ., concur.