{ "id": 1579475, "name": "DUNNE v. PETTERMAN", "name_abbreviation": "Dunne v. Petterman", "decision_date": "1948-07-24", "docket_number": "No. 5093", "first_page": "284", "last_page": "289", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "52 N.M. 284" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "197 P.2d 618" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 N.M. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575379 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/37/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 P. 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.M. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 204503 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/14/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.W.2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10238599 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/62/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.W. 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "87 S.W. 656", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "99 Tex. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2267718 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/99/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N.M. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566892 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/44/0342-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 460, "char_count": 7264, "ocr_confidence": 0.7, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3487078365433554e-07, "percentile": 0.6328303310347437 }, "sha256": "98f51e798f0a53965fde77c337a5dc22c181373ae2b4c5cf02cf8b7bc8c6836d", "simhash": "1:05dc6ebbd0d9fb76", "word_count": 1235 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:03.931466+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BRICE, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COMPTON, JJ., concur.", "BRICE, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COMPTON, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "DUNNE v. PETTERMAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LUJAN, Justice.\nThis action was commenced by the plaintiff, E. A. Dunne-, against the defendants, J. D. Clark, L. E. Petterman, d/b/a Trans-American Trailer Sales Co., and Southwest Finance, Inc., for the sum of $2050.00, or the possession o-f the house trailer claimed by him. Clark and the Southwest Finance Company having disclaimed any right to the title, interest or a lien thereon, the trial proceeded only against the defendant Petterman. Judgment was awarded against him from which he prosecutes this appeal.\nThe parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the district court. The plaintiff was engaged in the trailer business in the city of El Paso, Texas. On December 17, 1946, one Lon Milner entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff whereby he agreed to buy and the plaintiff agreed to sell an Alma Silver Moon house trailer, serial number 80106. On the same day Milner deposited $500.00 with plaintiff, it then and there being understood by and between the parties that the title to the house trailer would not be delivered until the balance of the $2050.00 was paid in full, on or before February 1, 1947. Possession of the house trailer was then delivered to Milner with the understanding that it would not be removed from El Paso, but be used by him, his wife and baby in said city. This was done because Milner was desperately in need of living quarters and none could be found in El Paso at that time. When plaintiff delivered possession of the house trailer to Milner, no bill of sale was delivered to \u2022him nor was there a chattel mortgage executed by Milner. However, there was a note given and signed by Milner for the balance of the money due on the transaction. Though this note recites \u201cthis note is secured by a chattel mortgage of even date herewith, * * * \u201d none was given, and. the plaintiff considered the same as a debt memorandum of the amount still due him by Milner.\nShortly after possession of the house-trailer had been delivered to Milner, he, without the consent of the plaintiff, removed it from the State of Texas into the-State of New Mexico, where he later sold it to the defendant at Albuqu'erque, on January 14, 1947, less than one month after he-obtained possession of it.\nSeveral assignments of error are presented on this appeal only one of which need be determined, itself being decisive,, namely:\n\u201cThat the court erred in holding that the-defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for reasonable value without actual or constructive notice of plaintiff\u2019s rights.\u201d\nUnder this assignment appellant urges that he is a bona fide purchaser of the trailer for a reasonable value and without notice of the infirmities in the transaction between Mike\u2019s Trailer Sales Company and Harold Carlson, and that Carlson having furnished him with a bill of sale, the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover it. With this contention we do not agree. The defendant had actual notice that the purported bill of sale from Mike\u2019s Trailer Sales Company to Carlson was fraudulent in that on its very face it plainly showed erasures as well as insertions written in different colored ink and different hand hand side the words \u201cAlma Silver Moon writing. The following is a photostatic re- #80106 on door plate\u201d noted; after the production of the original bill of sale. figures \u201c1944\u201d the words \u201cContinental\nFrom an examination of the above bill of sale which was executed by the Mike\u2019s Trailer Sales of El Paso, Texas, to one Harold A. Carlson, for a 1944 Continental House Trailer, Serial No. 2252838, it will be seen that at the time Milner alias Carlson delivered it to the defendant the following notations, insertions and erasures appeared on its very face: At the top right House Trailer\u201d were erased and the words \u201cAlma House Trailer\u201d inserted in lieu thereof; and after the figures 2252838 the following words and figures were added \u201cBody #80106 on door plate.\u201d All of which appeared in different hand writing and different ink.\nA person cannot be a bona fide purchaser who has brought to his attention facts which should have put him to an inquiry, which if pursued with due diligence, would have led to a knowledge of the infirmities appearing upon the face of the instrument involved in the transaction. To constitute that good faith which will protect a vendee in a transaction of the nature of the one before us, there must not only be an absence of actual knowledge of the vendor\u2019s fraud, but an absence of that which, in law, amounts to notice. If the vendee has knowledge of su'ch facts as would lead an ordinarily prudent man, using ordinary caution, to make further inquiries, which if made, would have disclosed the vendor\u2019s fraudulent act, he will be deemed to have notice of such fraud. We think it sufficiently appears, from the testimony of appellant\u2019s own agent and from the bill of sale, that he was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Kitchen v. Schuster, 14 N.M. 164, 89 P. 261; and Taylor v. Hancbett Oil Co., 37 N.M. 606, 27 P.2d 59.\nFinding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed and it is so ordered.\nBRICE, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COMPTON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LUJAN, Justice." }, { "text": "On Motion for Rehearing.\nLUJAN, Justice.\nThe defendant, appellant in this court, has moved for rehearing. This motion is unsupported by brief, Supreme Court Rule 18, Sec. 3, 1941 Comp. \u00a7 19-201, and, therefore, is not entitled to consideration as of right. Supreme Court Rule 16, Sec. 2. Nevertheless, the filing of such motion affords us the occasion for an additional observation on the opinion filed. It should have been mentioned therein, but was not, that in sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s oral conditional sales contract as against the defendant, who was unable to qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value from plaintiff\u2019s vendee, we were applying the law of Texas, where the contract was entered into, making such contracts chattel mortgages, rather than the law of New Mexico, where the defendant\u2019s purchase took place. Cf. Allison v. Niehaus, 44 N.M. 342, 102 P.2d 659.\nUnder Vernon\u2019s Texas Civil Statutes, Sec. 5489, a conditional sales contract is deemed to be a chattel mortgage and, when possession is delivered to the vendee, is void as to creditors and bona fide purchasers, unless the reservation of title be in writing and registered as required of chattel mortgages. This Section reads:\n\u201cAll reservation of the title to or property in chattels, as security for the purchase money thereof, shall be held to be chattel mortgages, and shall, when possession is delivered to the vendee, be void as to creditors and bona fide purchasers, unless such reservation be in writing and registered as required of chattel mortgages. * * * \u201d\nSee Crews v. Harlan, 99 Tex. 93, 87 S.W. 656, 13 Ann.Cas. 863; Crews v. Harlan, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W. 411; and Runnels Chevrolet Co. v. Travis, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 225.\nThe motion for rehearing will be denied. And it is so ordered.\nBRICE, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COMPTON, JJ., concur.", "type": "rehearing", "author": "LUJAN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lorenzo A. Chavez, of Albuquerque, for appellant.", "Rueckhaus & Watkins, Melvin D. Rueckhaus, and Ped S. Watkins, all of Albuquerque, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "197 P.2d 618\nDUNNE v. PETTERMAN.\nNo. 5093.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 24, 1948.\nRehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1948.\nLorenzo A. Chavez, of Albuquerque, for appellant.\nRueckhaus & Watkins, Melvin D. Rueckhaus, and Ped S. Watkins, all of Albuquerque, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0284-01", "first_page_order": 310, "last_page_order": 315 }