In re the Browning Crane & Shovel Co.

N.D. Ohio

In re the Browning Crane & Shovel Co.

133 F. Supp. 653, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 59 Ohio Op. 247, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2935

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedJuly 8, 1955

DocketIn Bankruptcy No. 70895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 F. Supp. 653 (In re the Browning Crane & Shovel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Browning Crane & Shovel Co., 133 F. Supp. 653, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 59 Ohio Op. 247, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2935 (N.D. Ohio 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

McNAMEE, District Judge.

The Petition for Review presents novel and interesting questions of fact and law which were decided adversely to the petitioner by the Referee.

After a careful review of the record I am of. the opinion that the decision of the Referee must be affirmed. The Referee held, in effect, that the two crane carriers in question were components of “power cranes”—which are specifically excepted by statute from the legislative definition of “motor vehicles.” This was correct. The crane carriers are embryonic power cranes and in their undeveloped state are within the exception that applies to the completed unit. The delivery of a Certificate of Title or Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin was not necessary to transfer title.

On the issue whether irrespective of the Motor Vehicle Law the parties in[664]*664tended to transfer title to Browning, the Referee made findings which support his conclusions of law. He held: “The giving of a note and mortgage.was not a condition precedent to passing title” and that “If that had been Dart’s intention, it was waived by its conduct as appears from the findings of fact. Title as well as possession passed to Browning prior to December 9, 1953.” See 46 Am.Jur., p. 612, Sec. 446, id., p. 613, Sec. 488.

There is a rational basis in the evidence for the Referee’s determinations, and his decision is affirmed.

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

McNAMEE, District Judge.

The Petition for Review presents novel and interesting questions of fact and law which were decided adversely to the petitioner by the Referee.

After a careful review of the record I am of. the opinion that the decision of the Referee must be affirmed. The Referee held, in effect, that the two crane carriers in question were components of “power cranes”—which are specifically excepted by statute from the legislative definition of “motor vehicles.” This was correct. The crane carriers are embryonic power cranes and in their undeveloped state are within the exception that applies to the completed unit. The delivery of a Certificate of Title or Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin was not necessary to transfer title.

On the issue whether irrespective of the Motor Vehicle Law the parties in[664]*664tended to transfer title to Browning, the Referee made findings which support his conclusions of law. He held: “The giving of a note and mortgage.was not a condition precedent to passing title” and that “If that had been Dart’s intention, it was waived by its conduct as appears from the findings of fact. Title as well as possession passed to Browning prior to December 9, 1953.” See 46 Am.Jur., p. 612, Sec. 446, id., p. 613, Sec. 488.

There is a rational basis in the evidence for the Referee’s determinations, and his decision is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. Supp. 653, 72 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 59 Ohio Op. 247, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-browning-crane-shovel-co-ohnd-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack