Court Opinion

ID: 9865003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:20:08.403319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:45.270397
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Butler,
concurring.
I do not think that the act of 1927 requiring registration of title to automobiles repealed or amended C. L. section 5113 requiring change of possession. It does not do so expressly; and it does not do so by implication, *47because there is no irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy between the two acts, and both can consistently stand together. The later act merely adds to the earlier the requirement that in the case of automobiles title shall be registered; it does not dispense with the necessity of a change of possession. True, it may seem unnecessary, or even unreasonable, to require a change of possession where the title is registered, but a court cannot dispense with a requirement imposed by the legislature merely because, in the opinion of the court, it is unnecessary or unreasonable.
In my opinion, the stipulated facts show that the assignment by the husband to the wife was not followed by an actual, continued change of exclusive possession of the automobile such as is required by the statute, as construed by this court.
For the reasons stated, I concur in the decision. Mr. Justice Burke concurs in the views herein expressed.