Samuels v. Barnet

California Court of Appeal Oct 21, 1926 No. Docket No. 5539.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the transfer of the automobile was void due to the failure to comply with the registration requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act and the statutory presumption of fraud arising from a lack of change of possession. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish the legal title or right of possession necessary to maintain the action against the sheriff.

Issues

Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the transfer of the automobile was fraudulent as to creditors.
Whether the failure to comply with the registration requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act rendered the transfer of the automobile invalid for the purpose of maintaining an action for possession.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the transfer could not be effective for the purpose of conferring upon appellant the right of possession necessary for the maintenance of this action.”

“the “intended transfer shall be deemed to be incomplete and not to be valid or effective for any purpose.””

“The purported sale, not having been accompanied by an “actual and continual change of possession, ’ ’ was presumably fraudulent as to creditors of Bohlen”

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant as sheriff of Alameda County to recover possession of a certain automobile held by the defendant under a writ of attachment. The cause was tried before the court sitting without a jury and resulted in a judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed on a typewritten record.

The litigation grows out of the case of

Bohlen

Alameda Investment Company,

which was tried in the superior court in Alameda County on December 12, 1921. That suit was commenced to recover moneys claimed to be due Bohlen for services rendered the investment company, but in due course the company filed a cross-complaint in which it claimed that Bohlen owed it $1,143.39 as balance due on the purchase of a certain 1920 model Nash touring car. Throughout these proceedings Bohlen was represented by Mr. Samuels, the plaintiff in this case, as his attorney and legal adviser. At about 2 -.30 or 2:45 P. M. of the day of the trial the court announced that it would render judgment in favor of the company for the amount claimed to be due from Bohlen, and soon thereafter Bohlen, Samuels, his attorney, and Robinson, a witness, went to the garage where the Nash car was stored and there Bohlen, at 3:15 P. M., delivered to Samuels a bill of sale of the car and an order upon the

[531]

garage owner to deliver the car over to Samuels. On the same day an attachment duly issued in the Bohlen ease by virtue of which the sheriff took the car into his possession. Thereafter judgment was duly entered against Bohlen, the car was sold to satisfy a part of the debt, and the execution was returned as otherwise unsatisfied.

At the trial of the case now under consideration the trial court found: “That at the time of the trial of the said action, Marcus L. Samuels, plaintiff herein, was attorney for the plaintiff in the action of

Louis C. Bohlen

Alameda Investment Company,

Samuels v. Barnet

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief