Automobile Financing, Inc. v. Downing Motors, Inc.

98 S.E.2d 643, 95 Ga. App. 711, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 901
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 16, 1957
Docket36691
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 643 (Automobile Financing, Inc. v. Downing Motors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Automobile Financing, Inc. v. Downing Motors, Inc., 98 S.E.2d 643, 95 Ga. App. 711, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

Quillian, J.

“Where one lends money to an automobile dealer and to secure the debt takes a bill of sale to an automobile which the lender expressly or by clear implication authorizes the dealer to sell in the regular course of business, the lender constitutes the dealer his agent to collect the proceeds of the sale and to account to him for the amount of the debt; and where the dealer sells the automobile to one who deals with him as a dealer, and in the due course of his business, and to one who is not guilty of participation in the fraudulent disposition of the proceeds of the sale, the lender’s title is extinguished, and he cannot assert it against such purchaser, though the bill of sale to secure debt be *715 duly recorded.” Gernazian v. Harrison, 66 Ga. App. 689 (19 S. E. 2d 165); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 68 Ga. App. 393 (2) (23 S. E. 2d 198); East Atlanta Bank v. Nicholson, 83 Ga. App. 557 (63 S. E. 2d 699); National City Bank of Rome v. Adams, 30 Ga. App. 219 (117 S. E. 285).

In the present case the facts stipulated the sale was made in the “ordinary course of dealings,” and it was established that it was a common practice for one automobile dealer to purchase automobiles from another at wholesale. There was no evidence that the defeendant was guilty of any fraudulent disposition of the proceeds of the sale. We see no reason why the rule quoted above should not- apply to sales made by one dealer to another. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and the general grounds are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Related

Moreland v. General Finance Corp.
122 S.E.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Peoples Loan & Finance Corp. v. McBurnette
110 S.E.2d 32 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 S.E.2d 643, 95 Ga. App. 711, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/automobile-financing-inc-v-downing-motors-inc-gactapp-1957.