Robert Bowman v. Chrysler Credit Corporation

496 F.2d 1322, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 569, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7705
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 1974
Docket72-3683
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 1322 (Robert Bowman v. Chrysler Credit Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert Bowman v. Chrysler Credit Corporation, 496 F.2d 1322, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 569, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7705 (5th Cir. 1974).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case began as a suit for damages in the state court and was removed to the United States District Court on diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount. On a trial to the Court without a jury judgment was awarded the defendant. We affirm.

The basis for the suit was that Chrysler Credit Corporation, from a public street, had peaceably repossessed an automobile, unlocked and with the ignition key in it, belonging to the plaintiff-appellant, Robert Bowman. The automobile was the subject of a conditional sales contract, assigned to Chrysler, and was in default for failure to comply with certain insurance provisions of the contract. The contract provided that upon default by Bowman the owner of the contract could repossess the automobile. The taking, with' no state participation, did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, James v. Pinnix [5 Cir., 1974], 495 F.2d 206.

Neither did it violate Mississippi law, Martin v. Cook, 237 Miss. 267, 114 So.2d 669 (1959).

Consequently, the judgment for Chrysler was correct.

As an additional ground of recovery, Bowman alleged that a sum of money left in the glove compartment of the automobile had been taken by those who seized the automobile. The District Court found this contention to be incredible, a finding which, on the evidence, is not clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

McComb Equipment Co., Inc. v. Cooper
370 So. 2d 1367 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1979)
King v. South Jersey National Bank
330 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
496 F.2d 1322, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 569, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-bowman-v-chrysler-credit-corporation-ca5-1974.