Court Opinion

ID: 9831551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:10:43.150211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.717976
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing.
Regulation “W,” referred to in our original opinion, was issued pursuant to Executive Order 8843, of August 9, 1941, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 5 note. Section 2(d), of said order provides:
“Neither this order nor any regulation issued thereunder shall affect the right of any person to enforce any contract, except that after the effective date of any such regulation every contract which is made in connection with any extension of credit, and which violates, or the performance of which would violate, any provision of such regulation (other than a provision designated therein as being for administrative purposes), and every lien, pledge, seller’s interest, * * * subject to the provisions of such contract or created in connection therewith, shall be unenforceable by the person who extends such credit or by any person who acquires any right of such person in such contract; provided that such disability shall not apply to any person who extends such credit, or acquires such right for value, in good faith and without knowing or having reason to know the facts by reason of which the making or performance of such contract was or would be such a violation.”
Section 14 of Regulation “W”, styled “Enforcibility of Contracts”, provides in effect that except as otherwise provided, its provisions are for administration purposes. The Purchasers Statement must therefore be taken as solely made for the convenience of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in administering the Regulation to see that it was complied with. We were therefore in error in holding that the Purchasers Statement formed a part of contract of purchase as completely as though it had been written into the mortgage. The express terms of the written contract contained in the mortgage relative to insurance imposed no affirmative duty on the mortgagee, and it contained the entire contract. And, being in error in our previously expressed view that the matters contained in the Purchasers Statement in response to the aforesaid Regulation must be taken as written into the contract, we must hold that by the terms of the contract appellant was under no duty to keep the automobile insured.
The motion for rehearing is accordingly granted, and the judgment of the trial court is here reversed, and judgment rendered that appellee take nothing by reason of his suit herein.
Motion for rehearing granted, former judgment set aside, and cause reversed and rendered.