Luther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Luther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

138 S.E.2d 402, 262 N.C. 716, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 718

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 4, 1964

Docket260

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 402 (Luther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luther v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 138 S.E.2d 402, 262 N.C. 716, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 718 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

DeNNy, C.J.

This Court said in the case of Credit Co. v. Norwood, 257 N.C. 87, 125 S.E. 2d 369: “Prior to 1961 a purchaser of a motor vehicle acquired title notwithstanding the failure of his vendor to deliver vendor’s certificate of title or vendee’s failure to apply for a new certificate. In Peek v. Trust Co., 242 N.C. 1, 86 S.E. 2d 745, the court charged: ‘Now, the law does not prohibit the sale of a motor vehicle without a transfer and delivery of certificate of registration of title; in other words, one can sell a motor vehicle on one day and the title pass, and deliver or transfer the paper certificate of title on a later date.’ This Court, in approving that instruction, said: ‘(I)t is observed that the instruction as given is precisely in accord with the decision in Corporation v. Motor Co., 190 N.C. 157, 129 S.E. 414.’ Similar interpretation was given the statute in Finance Co. v. Pittman, 253 N.C. 550, 117 S.E. 2d 423; 32 N.C. Law Review 545.”

In Godwin v. Casualty Co., 256 N.C. 730, 125 S.E. 2d 23, the purchaser had made the required initial cash payment and executed a conditional sales contract in blank, the precise number and amount of installments covering the balance of the purchase price had not been determined. The court below, however, held all the essential elements of the contract of sale by Ben Brewer, trading as Brewer Motor Company, to Paul J. Hinson, had been completed. Iiinson took possession 'of the car involved on 18 December 1958, and on 19 December 1958 signed an application for a certificate of title. Hinson had exclusive possession of the car until the collision on 24 December 1958. Plaintiff Godwin, who was injured in the collision, obtained judgment against Hinson who failed to satisfy same. Godwin brought an action against Brewer’s insurer who had issued to him a Garage Liability Policy similar to that involved in the instant case. Judgment of nonsuit was entered below and, upon appeal, we affirmed.

In our opinion, the plaintiffs’ evidence herein is insufficient to support a finding that the Lee Motor Company, Inc., was the owner of the 1956 Ford on 20 October 1957. Moreover, it is admitted that no notice, oral or otherwise, was given to the defendant or its agent with respect to the collision complained of until after the expiration of more than twenty-six months. See Muncie v. Insurance Co., 253 N.C. 74, 116 S.E. 2d 474.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

DeNNy, C.J.

This Court said in the case of Credit Co. v. Norwood, 257 N.C. 87, 125 S.E. 2d 369: “Prior to 1961 a purchaser of a motor vehicle acquired title notwithstanding the failure of his vendor to deliver vendor’s certificate of title or vendee’s failure to apply for a new certificate. In Peek v. Trust Co., 242 N.C. 1, 86 S.E. 2d 745, the court charged: ‘Now, the law does not prohibit the sale of a motor vehicle without a transfer and delivery of certificate of registration of title; in other words, one can sell a motor vehicle on one day and the title pass, and deliver or transfer the paper certificate of title on a later date.’ This Court, in approving that instruction, said: ‘(I)t is observed that the instruction as given is precisely in accord with the decision in Corporation v. Motor Co., 190 N.C. 157, 129 S.E. 414.’ Similar interpretation was given the statute in Finance Co. v. Pittman, 253 N.C. 550, 117 S.E. 2d 423; 32 N.C. Law Review 545.”

In Godwin v. Casualty Co., 256 N.C. 730, 125 S.E. 2d 23, the purchaser had made the required initial cash payment and executed a conditional sales contract in blank, the precise number and amount of installments covering the balance of the purchase price had not been determined. The court below, however, held all the essential elements of the contract of sale by Ben Brewer, trading as Brewer Motor Company, to Paul J. Hinson, had been completed. Iiinson took possession 'of the car involved on 18 December 1958, and on 19 December 1958 signed an application for a certificate of title. Hinson had exclusive possession of the car until the collision on 24 December 1958. Plaintiff Godwin, who was injured in the collision, obtained judgment against Hinson who failed to satisfy same. Godwin brought an action against Brewer’s insurer who had issued to him a Garage Liability Policy similar to that involved in the instant case. Judgment of nonsuit was entered below and, upon appeal, we affirmed.

In our opinion, the plaintiffs’ evidence herein is insufficient to support a finding that the Lee Motor Company, Inc., was the owner of the 1956 Ford on 20 October 1957. Moreover, it is admitted that no notice, oral or otherwise, was given to the defendant or its agent with respect to the collision complained of until after the expiration of more than twenty-six months. See Muncie v. Insurance Co., 253 N.C. 74, 116 S.E. 2d 474.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 402, 262 N.C. 716, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luther-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-company-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack