Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Edge

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Edge

352 So. 2d 709, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4025

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 12, 1977

DocketNo. 8373

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 709 (Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Edge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Edge, 352 So. 2d 709, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4025 (La. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

REDMANN, Judge.

The uncontradicted testimony and a “release” signed by the agent of Mack Financial Corporation (a corporate relation of plaintiff) and by defendant shows that the two mortgaged trucks were returned to plaintiff (through the financial corporation’s agent) about two months prior to their judicial seizure by plaintiff. Also un-contradicted is defendant’s and another witness’s testimony that the financial corporation’s agent promised that defendant would be released from further liability upon returning the trucks. We would therefore find plaintiff estopped from collecting the balance due, for the reasons of Int. Harv. Cred. Corp. v. Am. Troubleshooters, Inc., La.App. 4 Cir. 1976, 338 So.2d 708.

Plaintiff further argues, however, that the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title law, at La.R.S. 32:705, requires transfer of a vehicle only by assignment on the reverse of the certificate of title, and therefore defendant cannot have effected a giving of the trucks in payment of the debt. We tend to agree; but giving in payment is not the theory of Int. Harv., supra.

Affirmed.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

The uncontradicted testimony and a “release” signed by the agent of Mack Financial Corporation (a corporate relation of plaintiff) and by defendant shows that the two mortgaged trucks were returned to plaintiff (through the financial corporation’s agent) about two months prior to their judicial seizure by plaintiff. Also un-contradicted is defendant’s and another witness’s testimony that the financial corporation’s agent promised that defendant would be released from further liability upon returning the trucks. We would therefore find plaintiff estopped from collecting the balance due, for the reasons of Int. Harv. Cred. Corp. v. Am. Troubleshooters, Inc., La.App. 4 Cir. 1976, 338 So.2d 708.

Plaintiff further argues, however, that the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title law, at La.R.S. 32:705, requires transfer of a vehicle only by assignment on the reverse of the certificate of title, and therefore defendant cannot have effected a giving of the trucks in payment of the debt. We tend to agree; but giving in payment is not the theory of Int. Harv., supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 709, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-trucks-inc-v-edge-lactapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack