Simon v. Mattson

DESMOND, J., pro tem. The Superior Court of 'the County of Los Angeles, acting upon the petition of appellant, refused to grant a writ of mandate commanding the respondents, officers of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California, to issue certificates of junk for four motor vehicles which appellant had acquired; hence this appeal.

Section 235 of the Vehicle Code, as amended in 1939, reads as follows: “Any person desiring to dismantle or wreck any vehicle registered hereunder shall immediately forward to the department the certificate of ownership, registration card and the unexpired license plates issued for such vehicle. The department shall issue to such person a certificate of junk ...” Previously no provision was made for issuance of a junk certificate, section 235 merely reading: “Any person dismantling or wrecking any vehicle registered hereunder shall immediately forward to the department the certificate of ownership, registration card and the license plate or plates last issued for such vehicle. ...”

A careful reading of the two sections and consideration of the words which we have italicized will indicate that prior to 1939 any person was at liberty, without receiving permission from the Motor Vehicle Department, to dismantle or wreck a car, merely being under the obligation to forward to the Department the certificate of ownership, registration card and the license plate or plates last issued for such vehicle. The amended section in effect prohibits the junking of a vehicle without permission of the department issued in the form of a certificate of junk, and as will be noted, requires [444]a surrender, not of the last license plates but of the unexpired license plates.

From the record, it appears that on April 19, 1940, certificates of junk were requested by appellant and refused by respondents on four automobiles: a Durant, a Studebaker, a Buick and a Ford. Of these, only one, the Durant car, carried unexpired 1940 license plates.

As to that automobile the records of the Motor Vehicle Department shoAved that its legal and registered owner was not the appellant, but one W. C. Felton, and although appellant offered with his application a certificate of ownership (presumably showing Felton as the owner), a 1940 certificate of registration and 1940 license plates, respondents refused to issue the certificate of junk in the name of petitioner, because (to quote from the findings) “the registration and legal ownership of said vehicle had not been transferred to petitioner and because the fee required by statute for such transfer was not paid or tendered.” The Vehicle Code (sec. 377) calls for payment of the sum of one dollar for such transfer.