Summary
holding defendants liable for conversion of automobile even though certificate of title was in defendant's name
Summary of this case from Special Purp. Accts. Receivable v. Prime One Cap.Opinion
September 12, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County, E. Clay Lewis, J.
J.M. H.P. Sapp, Panama City, for appellants.
W. Fred Turner, Panama City, for appellee.
From the pleadings on which judgment was entered it appears that one Foster bought an automobile in Oklahoma and executed a chattel mortgage for part of the purchase price. This mortgage was assigned to appellee. Later the Oklahoma Tax Commission issued to Foster a certificate of title reciting that the car was "subject to a C M lien in favor of Bankers Invelst. [sic] Address 5th Bdy., Oklahoma City in the amount of $ ____ Dated 7-10-48". Immediately following was the language: "This is not an office of record for the filing of liens and does not guarantee the statement as to liens in this certificate of title."
Foster, despite his promise in the mortgage not to remove the property from the county where purchased, unless the mortgagee consented, took it to Panama City, without the mortgagee's permission, and there sold it to the appellants assigning to them the certificate containing the notation about the outstanding lien. The appellants ignored this intelligence of an indebtedness against the property, made no inquiry of the mortgagee but contented themselves with an affidavit from Foster that the property was unencumbered.
A certificate of title was obtained from the State of Florida and appellants then sold the car to one who purchased in good faith without notice of the mortgage.
There followed this action on the case for damages resulting from a conversion of the security.
The salient facts alleged in the declaration seem to have been admitted in the plea, except that appellant denied the removal without the mortgagee's consent, and denied "actual" knowledge of the lien.
The entry of the judgment was quite correct. The appellants could not admit receiving the certificate containing the recitals we have quoted and then, relying wholly upon a contrary representation of the mortgagor that no indebtedness existed, assume the position that they were ignorant of any lien. The name and address of the lien holder were plainly disclosed. The lack of the exact amount and the statement that the accuracy of the information could not be guaranteed gave them no excuse for making no inquiry of the lienor about the amount unpaid. If anything, it should have made them more wary. When they procured the Florida certificate showing the car free of debt, placed the car in the hands of an innocent purchaser who naturally relied upon that certificate, they became responsible to the appellees for conversion of the security. J.G. White Engineering Corporation v. Peoples Bank, 81 Fla. 35, 87 So. 753; Sickler et al. v. Melbourne State Bank, 118 Fla. 468, 159 So. 678; Berlein v. Eddy, 89 Fla. 484, 104 So. 780.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.