Henry v. Condit

9 Citing cases

  1. Maire v. Minidoka County Motor Co.

    61 Idaho 642 (Idaho 1940)   Cited 25 times
    Noting the well-established rule that registration of a vehicle in a person's name is prima facie proof of their ownership of the vehicle

    Evidence that the license plates upon an automobile were issued to the defendant is evidence from which the jury can find that the defendant was the owner of the automobile. (9 Blashfield's Cyc. of Automobile Law, Perm. Ed., 345, sec. 6061; 5 Am. Jur. 869, secs. 661, 662; Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131; Miller v. Service and Sales, Inc., 149 Or. 11, 38 P.2d 995, 96 A.L.R. 628.) BUDGE, J.

  2. Maxwell Co. v. So. Ore. Gas Corp.

    158 Or. 168 (Or. 1938)   Cited 27 times
    In Maxwell Co. v. So. Ore. Gas Corp., 158 Or. 168, 175, 74 P.2d 594, 75 P.2d 9, 114 ALR 697, we held that this requirement of notice is imposed as a condition precedent to the right of the vendee to recover for breach of warranty, and that the giving of notice must be pleaded and proved by the party seeking to recover.

    Thus, assuming the transaction to have been a sale by defendant to plaintiff, and thence by plaintiff to Bells, the provisions of the statute, which required that the certificate of title be transferred to plaintiff and that plaintiff notify the secretary of state and deliver to Bells the assigned certificate of title, were ignored. But this failure to obey the law is not conclusive against plaintiff's theory: Thiering v. Gage, 132 Or. 92 ( 284 P. 832); Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348 ( 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131); Fagg v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, 142 Or. 358 ( 19 P.2d 413). The result of these decisions is, that the legislature has not provided an exclusive method of transferring title to motor vehicles.

  3. Morrison v. City of Butte

    431 P.2d 79 (Mont. 1967)   Cited 12 times

    The uniformity of other courts have upheld objection to admission of accident reports under statutes similar to that in Montana. Sprague v. Brodus, 245 Iowa 90, 60 N.W.2d 850, 853; Zollars v. Barber, 140 Cal.App.2d 502, 295 P.2d 561; Clark v. Reichman, 130 Colo. 329, 275 P.2d 952; Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131; Hastings v. Thurston, 100 Ariz. 302, 413 P.2d 767; 97 C.J.S., Witnesses, ยง 264, p. 757; 8 Wigmore, 3rd Ed., p. 766. In a recent Federal case Stephenson v. Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 236 F. Supp. 420, 422 (U.S.D.C. 1954), under a similar statute the court held that an accident report was confidential and inadmissible.

  4. Gams v. Oberholtzer

    310 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1957)   Cited 10 times
    In Gams v. Oberholtzer, 50 Wn.2d 174, 310 P.2d 240 (1957), a registered owner was found not to be the true owner of a car because evidence was introduced to show that another person put up consideration for the car.

    It is well established that a showing that a party is the registered owner of a motor vehicle raises a rebuttable presumption that he is the actual owner for the purpose of vicarious liability. Delano v. La Bounty, 62 Wn. 595, 114 P. 434 (1911); Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 249, 108 N.E. 406 (1915); Henry v. Condit, 152 Ore. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131 (1936); Lever Bros. Co. v. Stapleton, 313 Ky. 837, 233 S.W.2d 1002 (1950); Logan v. Serpa, 91 Cal.App.2d 818, 206 P.2d 70 (1949); Annotation, 27 A.L.R. 2d 167. In the case before us, this presumption was met by the clear, convincing, and uncontradicted testimony of appellant and another witness that Keller furnished the one hundred dollars paid for the automobile; that appellant signed the registration papers only because car dealers were unwilling to enter into a contract with Keller because of his minority; and that Keller took possession of the car after the sale and exercised dominion over it up to the time of the accident.

  5. McAdam v. Royce

    274 P.2d 564 (Or. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    " In attempted support of this position they cite Murray v. Helferich, 146 Or. 602, 30 P.2d 1053, and Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722. Neither of the cases cited supports the defendants' contention, nor we believe, does any other case from any other jurisdiction.

  6. Sprague v. Brodus

    245 Iowa 90 (Iowa 1953)   Cited 13 times
    In Sprague v. Brodus, 245 Iowa 90, 94, 60 N.W.2d 850, 853, it is said: "The manifest design of the legislature is to enable the government to secure statistical data, under the seal of confidence, that is not to be broken in private litigation.

    The case illustrates the wisdom of the legislature in not restricting the privilege to the person reporting for in most all cases where an employee-driver is not injured in the accident caused by the alleged negligence of another, the driver is not a party. In Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131, the case was somewhat like the instant case in that plaintiff sued two defendants, a dealer and his salesman, and the latter did not answer and the case proceeded against the dealer. It was held statements by the salesman at the time he reported the accident were rightly excluded under a statute like ours.

  7. Rockwood v. Pierce

    51 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 1952)   Cited 11 times

    See, also, Carpenter v. Gibson, 80 Cal.App.2d 269, 181 P.2d 953. There are other cases pointing to the opposite view. See, Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131; Bachelder v. Woodside, 233 Iowa 967, 9 N.W.2d 464; McBride v. Stewart, 227 Iowa 1273, 290 N.W. 700. None of the statutes which we have examined are as specific as our ยง 169.09, subd. 13, which provides:

  8. Larison-Frees Co. v. Payne

    96 P.2d 1067 (Or. 1939)   Cited 1 times

    The decision of Swank v. Moisan, 85 Or. 662 (1917), 166 P. 962, relied on by the defendant, was based upon a statute which provided that a sale made without compliance with the provisions of the act would not be valid. That provision was dropped in subsequent legislation, and in its place a penal provision was substituted, as pointed out by Mr. Justice McBRIDE in Thiering v. Gage, 132 Or. 92, 103, 284 P. 832; and it was there held that failure to comply with the statute, as it then read, governing the sale of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title had been issued, did not invalidate the sale as between the immediate parties, although they might be punished for ignoring these provisions. That decision was followed in Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 358, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131, and Maxwell Co. v. Southern Oregon Gas Corporation, 158 Or. 168, 172, 74 P.2d 594, 75 P.2d 9, 114 A.L.R. 697; and, notwithstanding amendments in other particulars, as there has since been no change in the statute evidencing a different legislative intent, it remains the law of this state, and the sale was, therefore, valid. It remains to consider the defendant's complaint based on his failure to secure a license for the truck and trailer.

  9. State v. Halko

    56 Del. 480 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963)   Cited 29 times

    The specific point argued by defendant's counsel necessarily will result, if it is sustained, in a part of the report going into evidence, notwithstanding counsel's earnest assurances that he does not intend the report or a part to go into evidence; necessarily counsel will have to refer to the report for the time factor, as a basis of his question, and to permit this, I conclude would be in direct conflict with the prohibition of the statute. See Henry v. Condit, 152 Or. 348, 53 P.2d 722, 103 A.L.R. 131 (1936) and Lowen v. Pates, 219 Minn. 566, 18 N.W.2d 455, 456 (Minn. 1945).