DEALINGS IN CARS

Hokitika Guardian, 26 June 1931, Page 5

DEALINGS IN CARS

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. AVBLLUYGTON, June 24. In the Court of Appeal the hearing of the appeal of General Motors Acceptance Corporation from a judgment of Mr Justice Ostler in an action heard in December last, in which it was defendant and the Traders Finance Corporation was plaintiff was begun. In the statement of claim filed by the present respondent in the Court below, : t was aihgeu that on August 28, 1929, J. M. Bishara, trading as Bishara Bros., Tauinarunui, sold a Chevrolet car to \\ . J. Young under a hire purchase agreement, and that by a subsequent assignment by way of mortgage executed on the same day Bishara assigned interest in the agreement and in the car to the respondent company, j Further, on August 17, -1929, Bishara sold a Pontiac car to one Heuheu, and on the same day again assigned his in-j terest tin the hire purchase agreement, ' under which the car was sold, to the respondent company. All due notices of the. assignments were given. In Sep-! tember, 1929, the appellant ■ corporation . seized the two cars. Damages to the extent or £272 were claimed for con-

version. In the statement of defence the respondent stated that the first cal’ had beeti sold Under hire purchase to S. Bishara, Ltd., Tauinarunui, and as the purchase never haft been completed property therein never passed from the appellant company which, therefore, was entitled to seize the car at anytime on breach of agreement. As regards the second car it was stated that it had been purchased by appellant from. Bishara and in turn sold to. one Hall under a hire purchase agreement, the car remaining in Bishara’s garage and being finally sold by him to ueuheu.

It was given in evidence in the Lower "Court that in October, 1927, General Motors ("X.Z.), Ltd., had appointed S. Bishara, Ltd., its agent in the Taumarunui districts. That company took a lease of a garage and ran the business for about a month and then passed it over to Bishara, who traded as Bishara 'Bros. It was- run bv him for nearly two years. For a time business was highly successful, but ■in September, 1929. J. Bishara was adjudicated bankrupt. Mr Justice Ostler found thatwith the concurrence and knowledge of the appellant J. Bishara had been put in the position of mercantile agent in possession of the cars and was allowed to hold himself out to the public as sole agent of General Motors cars in his district, although the actual appointment had been to S. Bishara, Ltd., consequently by virtue of Section 3 of the Mercantile Law Act assignments by Bishara were valid and effectual and the respondent company was entitled to the amount claimed as damages for eoimn'niotu nwtry- owi'Oou-k An appeal now is brought from that, decision, The ease is being heard by the Ch>ef Justice and Justices Herdman, (MacGregor and Kennedy.

q'lie Court adjourned till to-morrow