Davis v. Clelland
59 Ohio Law. Abs. 17, 45 Ohio Op. 89, 92 N.E.2d 827 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller of a motor vehicle who issues a certificate of title to a minor cannot, in the absence of fraud, later deny the minor was the purchaser or challenge the minor's right to title in an action for rescission, as the certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and identity of the purchaser, and minors generally possess the legal right to disaffirm contracts not for necessaries.
Facts:
- Elden Davis, a minor, obtained a certificate of title for a 1939 Chevrolet Town Sedan from Clelland and Mouser, the defendant's business, on January 19, 1948.
- Elden Davis purchased the automobile.
- Elden Davis secured the purchase price through a check drawn upon his own funds and the proceeds of a loan from a finance company.
- Elden Davis signed the note for the finance company loan as the principal, and his father, Elmer M. Davis, co-signed it.
- Elden Davis granted a mortgage on the automobile to secure the finance company loan.
- Elden Davis used the automobile for almost a year.
- Elden Davis drove the automobile into a telephone pole, causing it to be wrecked.
- Elden Davis elected to rescind the purchase transaction and tendered the wrecked automobile back to Clelland and Mouser.
Procedural Posture:
- Elden Davis, a minor, instituted an action in a trial court to recover the purchase price of a Chevrolet Town Sedan.
- Elden Davis pleaded a contract of purchase, election to rescind, and tender back of the property.
- Clelland and Mouser, the defendant, filed an answer generally denying the claims and averring that Elden Davis's father, Elmer M. Davis, purchased the automobile, not Elden Davis.
- At the conclusion of Clelland and Mouser's evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict for Elden Davis upon his motion.
- Judgment was entered thereon for Elden Davis for $750 and costs.
- Clelland and Mouser's motion for a new trial was overruled.
- Clelland and Mouser appealed on questions of law from the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a seller of an automobile, who issued a certificate of title to a minor, have the right to assert that the minor was not the actual purchaser in an action for rescission, thereby precluding the minor from disaffirming the contract?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No, a seller who assigns a certificate of title to a minor cannot later deny that the minor was the purchaser or challenge the minor's right to title in an action for rescission. The court affirmed the judgment for Elden Davis, holding that Ohio General Code §6290-4 prevents courts from recognizing claims to an automobile's title unless evidenced by a certificate of title. Since Clelland and Mouser, either personally or through an authorized agent, elected to assign the certificate of title to Elden Davis, explicitly identifying him as the 'Buyer,' they cannot now assert that the minor was not the purchaser in the absence of fraud. The source of the purchase money was deemed immaterial as to the identity of the purchaser. Allowing the defendant to argue the father was the purchaser would contradict the statute, vary the terms of a formal written instrument, and impeach the assignment of title. Furthermore, the record, including the defendant's proffered testimony, indicated that Elden Davis paid for the automobile with his own funds and was the principal on the loan. While acknowledging the perceived injustice to the defendant, the court emphasized that the proceeding was controlled by legal principles, specifically the minor's right to affirm or disaffirm contracts made during minority, other than those for necessaries. Those who deal with a minor are charged with knowledge of this protective legal principle.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation and conclusive nature of Ohio's motor vehicle certificate of title laws, establishing that such titles are paramount evidence of ownership and buyer identity. It underscores the robust legal protections afforded to minors in contract law, allowing them to disaffirm agreements even when doing so results in financial detriment or perceived unfairness to the other party, absent fraud or contracts for necessaries. The decision limits a seller's ability to challenge the identity of a purchaser once a formal title has been issued, highlighting the importance of statutory compliance over informal understandings or the source of funds.
