Firm’s Title To Car Upheld By Court Of Appeal

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29206, 17 May 1960, Page 17

Firm’s Title To Car Upheld By Court Of Appeal

WELLINGTON, May 16. I The Court of Appeal, in a reserved judgment delivered this morning, dismissed) an appeal brought by William Noel and Ethel May Jeffcott agaimtt a decision of Mr Justice McCarthy delivered in the Supreme Court at Wellington on December 16, 1959. In the Supreme Ctourt the present appellants, as plaintiffs, sought possession of k miotor-car, or alternatively, daanagqk . from Andrew Motors. Lt<<, the present respondent. i '' The plaintiffs, residents of Petone, advertised a motor-car for sale in July, 195 a I’hey received a telephone cill from a sms who saal.he was a. Mr ■terttefes, MMI tori hi * wife inter. M*. to the ear. T te inan detey toe bank ten ' wl icte itt was drawn, as there was no lacwtait to toe name to Step!«» at fftot rainfr Straitens then purpotted to sell the ear to Andrew Motors, Ltd. at Palmerston North, and had received a cheque for £725 from it The plaintiffs thcjfe claimed possession of toe car, or, alternatively, damages from / Andrew Motors, Ltd The pohce failed to locate toe person who had called tomself Mr Stephens, and Mr Jtu;tiee McCarthy held in favotir, to toe defendant company. Mr .pa* Mrs Jeffcott then* appealed I against this decision on the ground that it was erroneous in fact rttnd law. Mr R. E. Harding appeared for the appellants, and the riespond-

lent was represented by Mr U. S. Lusk, with him Mr B. G. C. i Elwood. I The president of the Court of I Appeal (Mr Justice K. M. Gresson) delivered a joint judgment r prepared by himself and Mr Jus- : tice Cleary. In it he said that , the question for determination ; narrowed down to whether the , respondent obtained a good title , to the car. i “In our opinion the respondent obtained a good title to the car by virtue of section 25 and I 27 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act, • 1908, more particularly the latter, in that the sale was one by i a person, who having bought the ! car, obtained, with the consent >. A the sellers, possession of the 1 car and of the documents relatt ing to it and then subsequently > disposed of it to toe respondent, ! who received it in good faith • and without notice to any lien or I other right of the original sei- > lets in respect of the car. t "We think it clear that the rei spondent obtained from Stephens ■ an unencumbered title by rea- ’ son of the provisions to section >27 (2). It is sufficient for the > purposes of that section that the transfer of possession to Stephens was with the consent of the ven- • dors. There is no requirement ’ under section 27 (2) that the consent shall have been lawfully ob- » tained. In fact toe transfer to F Stephens was with toe consent of - toe vendors, and he was thereby > enabled to make a valid rale to > the respondent, who acquired a good title.” ■ Mr Justice Hutchison wrote a ■ separate judgment in which he agreed that the appeal should be ' dismissed.