Anticich v. Motor Car Inn Garage, Inc.

87 So. 279, 124 Miss. 822
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1921
DocketNo. 21423
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 So. 279 (Anticich v. Motor Car Inn Garage, Inc.) 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
Anticich v. Motor Car Inn Garage, Inc., 87 So. 279, 124 Miss. 822 (Mich. 1921).

Opinion

Sam C. Cook, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant began this suit in the circuit court of Harrison county. The declaration avers that the appellee sold to her a certain “Roamer” automobile for the sum of two thousand nine hundred dollars; that the defendant warranted that the car was new in all respects, and that it was in perfect order and condition. Appellant further charges that she paid two thousand nine hundred dollars upon the receipt of the car; that she afterwards discovered that the car was a secondhand car, and was not worth more than one thousand two hundred dollars, and she therefore sues for one thousand seven hundred dollars. To this declaration was filed the general issue.

Appellant produced evidence tending to show that the car was a secondhand car. Evidence introduced by the defendant tended to show that the car was a new car as represented. The real contest developed upon the trial Avas whether or not the defendant named in the declaration was the seller of the car in question. The defendant Avas a Louisiana corporation, Asfith its main domicile in New Orleans, and the theory of the plaintiff was that it was doing business in Biloxi, Miss., through an agent by the name of J. M. McLaughlin.

We assume that the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant upon the theory that the evidence did not warrant the jury in finding that Mr. McLaughlin was the [825]*825agent of tlie defendant. The evidence offered by the plaintiff along' that line forced the plaintiff to go into the camp of the enemy. The first is a letter of the president of the defendant company., addressed to the plaintiff, and is in words and figures as follows, to-wit:

“We are in receipt of a communication from the Southern Automobile Co., of Biloxi, Miss., stating that you, the purchaser of the Roamer car recently sold by us to them, our representative, are very much dissatisfied and perturbed over some statement being made to the effect that your car is a secondhand proposition.
“Permit the writer to state explicitly and with great, emphasis that such statement is incorrect, erroneous, and is evidently a means concocted by some competitor with very unprofessional ethics, to poison your mind against the purchase.
“We consider such statement a direct reflection upon our integrity and standing in the automotive world, and if you will be kind enough to disclose the identity of whoever is guilty of such conduct in the competitive automobile world, we assure you that same will be taken up with the Bi-State Automotive Association and properly dealt with.
“It is to be remembered that we get cars shipped here from the factory sometimes without tire equipment because of the shortage, and therefore a delay in shipment, and we put on local equipment, which was the case with your car, Fisk-Cord tires and Firestone tubes. It is possible in mounting these tires that a tube may have been pinched and the mechanic vulcanized same and used; however, we have no record of anything but new and first-class material ever going into any of our goods.
“Have A’ou investigated what substitution that is possible to be made when making repairs to tires under local conditions, and under competitive practice?
“Rest assured that Amur car is a new car, and has never been in any one’s hands but the Motor Car Inn Garage of NeAV Orleans, La., as distributors, and Ave are ready to make an affidaAdt to that effect whenever you so desire.
[826]*826“Any one trying to compromise your Biloxi dealer by any such report will certainly get our co-operation and direct support, and if necessary will go to the mat with the proof, court or otherwise, to vouch for the validity and character of the goods as represented.
“We would have you understand that we at all times stand behind everything we sell, and have a factory behind us that will protect every purchaser of a Roamer car and give you a degree of protection that you never received before.
“We will appreciate anything in the way of information that tends to reflect upon either the car or the dealer, or the distributor of R'oamer cars in this territory, and assure you of fair dealing and full protection under our policy.
“Trusting you will be fair and permit our dealer to co-operate with you in the care and upkeep of your car, and that you will allow no one to prejudice your mind m this matter, and that you will enjoy the individuality of the Roamer sport car to such degree that all this trouble will pass out of your mind, and you will become a booster.
“Yours very sincerely,
“Motor ¡Oar Inn Garage, Inc.,
Per K. E. Lindrose.-’-’

The next bit of evidence was the contract of the defendant and his representative at Biloxi, viz.:

“This agreement, made and entered into this 25th day of October, A. D. 1919, by and between Motor Oar Inn Garage, Inc., city of New 'Orleans, La., state of La., a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Louisiana, party of the first part, hereinafter called the ‘company,’ and J. M. McLaughlin, city of Biloxi, state of Miss., party of the second part, hereinafter called the ‘dealer,’ witnesseth:
“That the parties hereto in consideration of the benefits to be derived from the faithful performance of this agreement, do hereby covenant and agree with each other as follows:
[827]*827“The company agrees, and does hereby extend to the dealer, the exclusive right to sell, during the continuance of this contract, Roamer automobiles in the following described territory: Jackson, Harrison, Hancock, Pearl River, Stone, and George counties.
“The dealer agrees to sell Roamer automobiles strictly within the confines of the territory mentioned in this agreement, and under no circumstances to sell Roamer automobiles outside of said territory without the permission of the company.
“The dealer agrees to thoroughly work all portions of the territory during the continuance of this contract, and the company agrees not to ship any cars to other persons, firm or corporation, for sale in said territory, during the existence of this agreement, except, when, in the opinion of the company, the dealer is not working the territory to the best advantage, in which case the company reserves the right, on giving the dealer ten days’ written notice, to enter such territory and sell direct, deducting any territory so entered by it from territory hereby allotted.
“The dealer hereby agrees to buy from the company, and the company agrees to sell to the dealer, ten Roamer cars according to the following shipping schedule, which shall be the minimum rate of delivery:
“Shipments: July, Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Oec., Jan., Feb., March, April, May, June. Total. Gars to be delivered from our floor in New Orleans as called for, McLaughlin to stand freight from New Orleans to destination, all sales made f. o. b. floor.

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

Related

F. O. Grey v. Hayes-Sammons Chemical Co.
310 F.2d 291 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
Stewart v. Potter
104 P.2d 736 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 So. 279, 124 Miss. 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anticich-v-motor-car-inn-garage-inc-miss-1921.