Court Opinion

ID: 9530583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:01:19.067662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:11.032934
License: Public Domain

Jackson, J.
(dissenting): Finding myself unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court, I must dissent.
I believe that the real question in this case has been misstated by the parties. I would agree that the father as a trustee for his son is the real party in interest and may bring the action as plaintiff, cf. G. S. 1949, 60-403. But the plaintiff’s son, who was the negligent driver of the car, and who under the stipulated facts was the beneficial owner of the car, has been made a party to the action. In my opinion, under the facts, the negligence of the beneficial owner of the car would bar the recovery of a judgment by the holder of the bare legal title.
Several of the former cases of this court have recognized the beneficial ownership of automobiles in persons who were not the holders of the certificate of title.
In the case of In re Estate of Baumstimler, 159 Kan. 316, 153 P. 2d 927, an intervivos gift was held valid as against third parties although the donor retained the certificate of title in his own name.
In Weaver v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 168 Kan. 80, 211 P. 2d 113, an equitable owner of an automobile, although he had not as yet acquired any certificate of title, was held to have an insurable interest in the car.
In Fruit v. Stacy, 168 Kan. 632, 215 P. 2d 140, a dealer had sold an automobile to a purchaser, and delivered a certificate of title using the wrong engine numbers. The purchaser was allowed to sue the dealer for misrepresentations concerning the car, and the defense based on the defective certificate was held to be of no merit.
In Crow v. Hershberger, 170 Kan. 492, 226 P. 2d 846, it was held that an owner of an automobile could establish his interest therein as against one holding the certificate of title.
*489There can be no question but that G. S. 1959 Supp. 8-135, is designed to and does protect bona fide purchasers and mortgagees for value. But this is not such a case.
In my opinion, the judgment of the district court in this $500 law suit should be reversed.