Kelley Kar Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

[264]

MOORE, P. J.

The judgment herein awarded the Kelley Kar Company possession of a Mercury automobile which it had sold on a conditional sale contract. The vehicle was allegedly purchased with money stolen from an Oklahoma bank and the trade-in of a Buick automobile. Appellant, insurer of the bank and now its subrogee by virtue of having paid the loss, demands the value of the Buick which was traded in on the Mercury, and the identifiable stolen money in order to recoup its loss as insurer of the bank.

On July 29, 1954, one James D. Holland robbed the Farmers National Bank of Erick, Oklahoma, taking therefrom $22,158. On August 2,1954, Holland purchased from respondent a Mercury. He paid cash $1,000.80 and turned in a Buick which evidently had been purchased with the stolen funds, leaving due on the conditional sale contract for the Mercury a balance of $1,582.80. On or about August 4, 1954, the Federal Bureau of Investigation impounded the Mercury and $800 of the purchase price as being identifiable money from the bank robbery. Thereafter, respondent, having declared Holland’s default on the conditional sale contract, asserted claim to the Mercury and the $800. Appellant also claimed them. From the judgment in favor of respondent, Maryland Casualty Company appeals, demanding (1) return of $800 as identifiable loot money; (2) return of the Buick automobile which appellant contends was purchased with the stolen money.

One who receives stolen money in good faith and for good consideration will prevail over the unfortunate victim of the thief.

(State Nat. Bank

v.

United States,

114 U. S. 401 [5 S.Ct. 888, 29 L.Ed. 149] ; 25 L.R.A.N.S. 632; 36 Am. Jur. 460, 461, § 6, n. 6;

Porter

v.

Beha,

8 F.2d 65, 75.)

Appellant contends that one who purchases stolen property has no greater right than he who stole the property and cites the case of