Triggs v. Zicovich

California Court of Appeal May 15, 1953Published

Before: Goodell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A bailee cannot challenge the title of the bailor in an action for rental payments when no third party has asserted an adverse claim to the property. The registered ownership of a vehicle is not conclusive evidence of title, and the bailor may maintain an action based on their possession and beneficial ownership.

Issues

Whether a bailee may set up title in a third party as a defense against a bailor's action for rental payments.
Whether the registered owner of a vehicle is the only party entitled to maintain an action for its rental.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general rule is that in an action by the bailor the bailee will not be allowed to set up title in a third party”

“The instant case is not within the exception, since here no claim of title was asserted by any third person.”

“The ownership certificate is not conclusive of the question of title”

117 Cal.App.2d 768 (1953) LESLIE TRIGGS, Appellant,

ANTHONY ZICOVICH et al., Respondents.

California Court of Appeals.

May 15, 1953. John R. Kahle and Maurice L. Martin for Appellant.

Edward M. Fellows and Emery J. Delmas for Respondents.

GOODELL, J.

In this action a nonsuit was granted and this appeal was taken from the judgment entered thereon. The record, made up under rule 7(a), consists of the judgment roll and a settled narrative statement.

Plaintiff alleged that on October 21, 1949, defendant hired from him a 1946 Chevrolet dump truck for 38 weeks, and promised to pay a reasonable rental; that $2.54 per hour, or a total of $3,860, was such rental; that it become due on July 17, 1950, and was unpaid. The prayer was for $4,353.55 which includes $492.75 for alleged damage to the truck. (The rental was apparently calculated on a 40-hour week.)

The answer denied all these allegations, and set up a counterclaim for $370.

Plaintiff testified that he owned the truck and had paid for it with his own funds. Defendant, called under section 2055, testified: "that on or about the 21st day of October, 1949, ... he acquired possession of the truck ... from the plaintiff; [770] that he had used said truck at various times between that date and the 17th day of July, 1950; that plaintiff removed said truck from his premises thereafter and with his consent on or about the 17th day of July, 1950."

When it appeared from plaintiff's own testimony that the pink slip for the truck stood in the name of Marie Barrett (who at the time of trial had become his wife) defendant moved for a dismissal on the ground "that plaintiff was not a proper party to maintain the action," which motion was denied as premature. Plaintiff then moved to amend so as to add Marie Triggs as a party plaintiff, which motion was denied.

At the close of plaintiff's case defendant's motion for nonsuit was granted on the ground previously urged, i.e., that plaintiff could not maintain the action because he was not the registered owner of the truck. It was granted despite the testimony of Mrs. Triggs--which on such motion had to be taken as true--"that said truck had been purchased by plaintiff with his own funds prior to their marriage, and, that the ownership certificate (pink slip) had been taken in her name at that time, with her knowledge and consent. She further testified that she had and claimed no interest whatever in said truck, now or at any time; that said truck had at all times been in the possession and control of plaintiff and was owned by him."

Triggs v. Zicovich

AI Brief

GOODELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief