Court Opinion

ID: 9772369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:15:44.984778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.771586
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
On their motion for rehearing or transfer, appellants stress a recent Kansas decision, Bordman Investment Co. v. Field, 182 Kan. 344, 320 P.2d 862. As mentioned in that opinion Kansas does have a statute similar to our Statute, Section 301.210 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
The Kansas decision is readily distinguishable, for that case was submitted to the jury with issues of (1) payment in full of the secured debt; and (2) actual authority from plaintiff to first sell the automobile and deliver possession thereof to the purchaser and then to pay off the secured note. Further, the jury was instructed that the automobile there in question “was a new unused automobile and no certificate of title had been issued thereon in any state.”
In the instant decision, as we view the facts, plaintiff did not authorize the sale of the “used” (previously sold to the Barthol-omews) automobile prior to the payment of the note thereon. Nor is there any claim of payment of plaintiff’s note secured by its chattel mortgage, which, of course, would be a complete defense to the possessory action.
Our legislature, in its wisdom, has placed the sales of used automobiles in a class of its own, with different requirements from those concerning the sales of other chattels. The courts, and the public alike, must recognize and be bound by the action of the legislature, and its effect on the rights of sellers, purchasers and mortgagees of such automobiles.
Our Statute, Section 301.200, subd. 2, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. authorizes dealers in *80new cars to sell new cars and give the purchaser a bill of sale which the purchaser can use to obtain a certificate of title. Thus, a mortgagee, such as Bordman, would not be in possession of the instrument necessary to a valid transfer of title to a new car, and the new car dealer would be able to give a purchaser a bill of sale apparently sufficient for the purchaser to secure a title certificate. In such event, different considerations would obtain as to the right of a mortgagee to prevail over a purchaser of a new car from the new car dealer. However, that case is not before us, and we do not pass on it. Nor can appellants rely upon those considerations as controlling in the instant case.
The motion for rehearing or transfer is overruled.