Allstate Insurance Company v. Estes

345 So. 2d 265, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1032, 1977 Miss. LEXIS 2466
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 27, 1977
Docket49381
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 345 So. 2d 265 (Allstate Insurance Company v. Estes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allstate Insurance Company v. Estes, 345 So. 2d 265, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1032, 1977 Miss. LEXIS 2466 (Mich. 1977).

Opinion

This appeal is from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County wherein David L. Estes, the appellee, was awarded possession of an automobile. It involves a question of "title" under Mississippi Code Annotated section 75-2-403 (1972).

The evidence discloses that Estes purchased a 1974 Chevrolet Caprice Sport Coupe from James E. Howard, ostensibly an individual in the automobile business. Further proof revealed the car to have been stolen from a Chevrolet dealership in Florida and after a circuitous route, the sport coupe eventually came to rest in Hinds County. Estes was unquestionably a good faith purchaser.

Section 75-2-403 of the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code, as relevant, provides:

(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer. . . . A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. . . .

Appellee contends that the facially valid Mississippi title, ultimately based upon an Alabama tag receipt issued pursuant to a forged bill of sale, resulted in "voidable title" in Howard with its concomitant power. The appellant, Allstate Insurance Company, who obtained valid title subsequent to paying the Florida dealer's loss, contends its ownership was unaffected by the intervening good faith "equities" of Estes.

The dictate of Section 75-2-403 is clear. Regardless of the number of transactions, one cannot remove himself from the confines of the rule: A purchaser can take only those rights which his transferor has in the subject goods; a thief has neither title nor the power to convey such. Gurley v. ThePhoenix Ins. Co., 233 Miss. 58, 101 So.2d 101 (1958). Accordingly, title remained in Allstate and the circuit court order granting possession to Estes was erroneous.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

GILLESPIE, C.J., INZER, P.J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rico Veazy v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2010
Eisenberg v. Grand Bank for Savings
70 F. App'x 765 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
South Mississippi Finance Co. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
605 So. 2d 736 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992)
Newman v. Stuart
597 So. 2d 609 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992)
Touch of Class Leasing v. Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada, Inc.
591 A.2d 661 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
218 Cal. App. 3d 1354 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Inmi-Etti v. Aluisi
492 A.2d 917 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Paschal v. Hamilton
363 So. 2d 1360 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1978)
Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Pate
362 So. 2d 1245 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
345 So. 2d 265, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1032, 1977 Miss. LEXIS 2466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-company-v-estes-miss-1977.