Yale Automobile Co. v. Walker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; The contract does not in terms or by inference retain title to the auto, and the phrase, “stand good for the debt,” has been otherwise legally defined. The phrase is not ambiguous, and the court erred in not construing it as a lien enforceable between the parties only.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; The contract does not in terms or by inference retain title to the auto, and the phrase, “stand good for the debt,” has been otherwise legally defined. The phrase is not ambiguous, and the court erred in not construing it as a lien enforceable between the parties only. It was error for the court to refuse to construe the phrase and the contract. 73 Ark. 338; 90 Id. 68. Appellant was an innocent purchaser. Similar phrases have often been construed to be an equitable lien or mortgage and can not be the basis of a…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellee instituted suit in replevin against appellant in the municipal court of North Little Bock, to recover a Chevrolet automobile, motor No. 10117, alleging that he was the owner thereof by virtue of a reservation of title therein until the purchase money was paid, when he sold it to Frank Watson, appellant’s vendor.
The case proceeded to trial in the municipal court upon the issue of whether title to said automobile was reserved in Wesley Walker at the time he sold same to Frank Watson, which resulted in a judgment of title in appellant. An appeal was prosecuted from that judgment to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson, Morris & Co. v. RutherfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Barnhill v. HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Four States Grocer Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bailey v. SuttonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Agey v. PedersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935