Court Opinion

ID: 9773610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:51:35.841142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.548725
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, Justice, dissenting. The governing federal statute, quoted by the majority, reads in part: “No conveyance or instrument the recording of which is provided for by subsection (a) of this section shall be valid . . . against any person other than the person by whom the conveyance or other instrument is made or given . . . until such conveyance or other instrument is filed for recordation in the office of the Administrator.” An essential element in the Congressional scheme is that the conveyance or other instrument be in ivriting, so that it ccm be recorded. So interpreted, the statute achieves a worthwhile result, by requiring a registration of aircraft titles similar to that which applies to motor vehicles and the title to land. I think we ought to adhere to the basic requirement that the instrument of conveyance be in writing, else the registration system loses much of its practical value. I would reject the appellant’s assertion of title, on the ground that the legislative intent to give de facto validity to unrecorded conveyances was intended to apply only to written instruments.