Frankel Chevrolet Co. v. H T Lathy Motor Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Frankel Chevrolet Co. v. H T Lathy Motor Co.

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 361

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1929

DocketNo 9966

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 361 (Frankel Chevrolet Co. v. H T Lathy Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frankel Chevrolet Co. v. H T Lathy Motor Co., 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 361 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court in deciding as it did, held that the absence of the bill of sale to plaintiff in error, in view of the requirements of the statute, rendered its claim to the possession of the' automobile invalid despite the fact that the automobile was physically delivered to it. The case of Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Todino, 111 O. S. 274, syllabus, reads as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

In the opinion the court cites the case of Building Assoc, v Clark, 43 O. S. 427.

Further quoting from the opinion in the case of Bellidy v. Franklin Bank of Columbus, 16 O. 533, it was held:

In explicit terms the supreme court laid down the rule that no title to an automobile is conveyed in the absence of a bill of sale, and of course we feel bound by that decision. One is inclined to doubt the soundness of the reasoning in the case of Insurance Co. v. Todino, because at first blush it seems to unduly interfere with the right of individuals to freely contract with each other but regardless of our own inclination the decision of Insurance Co. v. Todino supra, sustains the judgment of the Municipal Court arid it is therefore affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court in deciding as it did, held that the absence of the bill of sale to plaintiff in error, in view of the requirements of the statute, rendered its claim to the possession of the' automobile invalid despite the fact that the automobile was physically delivered to it. The case of Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Todino, 111 O. S. 274, syllabus, reads as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

In the opinion the court cites the case of Building Assoc, v Clark, 43 O. S. 427.

Further quoting from the opinion in the case of Bellidy v. Franklin Bank of Columbus, 16 O. 533, it was held:

In explicit terms the supreme court laid down the rule that no title to an automobile is conveyed in the absence of a bill of sale, and of course we feel bound by that decision. One is inclined to doubt the soundness of the reasoning in the case of Insurance Co. v. Todino, because at first blush it seems to unduly interfere with the right of individuals to freely contract with each other but regardless of our own inclination the decision of Insurance Co. v. Todino supra, sustains the judgment of the Municipal Court arid it is therefore affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-chevrolet-co-v-h-t-lathy-motor-co-ohioctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack