Opinion
41591.
ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 1965.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1965. REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 29, 1965.
Trover. DeKalb Civil and Criminal Court. Before Judge Mitchell.
Rich, Bass Kidd, Casper Rich, for appellant.
John L. Respess, for appellee.
Where no sale or intent to pass title is involved, § 4 of the Act of 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, p. 735; Code Ann. § 68-905), is not applicable so as to prevent an action in trover by a person who brings a motor vehicle into Georgia for the purpose of resale, against a garage man who has been given such a vehicle for the purpose of making repairs only.
ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 1965 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 29, 1965.
J. L. Green brought an action in trover to recover a described automobile from Wallace D. Harper doing business as H H Paint and Body Shop. The petition alleged that the automobile had been turned over to the defendant to make certain repairs, that the amount owed for the repairs had been tendered to the defendant by the plaintiff, and that the defendant refused to accept such tender and refuses to deliver the automobile to the plaintiff. The defendant filed a plea in bar based upon the provision of the Act of 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, p. 735; Code Ann. Ch. 68-9), and in support of such plea presented evidence that the plaintiff had purchased the automobile out of State and brought it to this State for the purpose of sale, but it was stipulated that no such sale had taken place, and that the vehicle was delivered to the defendant for the purpose of making repairs. The trial court overruled the plea in bar and held that the Act was not for the purpose of prohibiting the owner of such an automobile from recovering it from a person who had made repairs thereon, no sale having been consummated by the parties involved and no intention to pass title being involved. The defendant complains of the judgment overruling his plea in bar.
The sole question for decision is whether the Act of 1937, supra, prohibiting, in all cases, any owner of a used motor vehicle purchased in another State and brought into this State for the purposes of resale from recovering such vehicle in trover where the provisions of such Act as to registration and bond have not been met, or whether such prohibition only applies as between the vendor and vendee.
Section 4 of such Act ( Code Ann. § 68-905), provides: "Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that no action or right of action to recover any such motor vehicle or any part of the sale price thereof shall be maintained in the courts of this State by any such dealer or vendor, his successors or assigns, in any case wherein such vendor or dealer shall have failed to comply with the terms and provisions of this Act." A literal construction of the phrase "any such dealer or vendor, his successors or assigns" would not only include the person bringing the vehicle into the State but also all innocent purchasers of such vehicle in the future. It is doubtful that such was the intent of the General Assembly. "Courts may examine the caption as an aid to interpretation of a doubtful statute. Eason v. Morrison, 181 Ga. 322 ( 182 S.E. 163)." Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, 200 Ga. 216, 223 ( 39 S.E.2d 225). The provisions of Sec. 1 of the Act which require "every dealer in used, or second hand, motor vehicles, who is a nonresident of the State of Georgia or who has no permanent place of business in the State of Georgia, and every person, firm or corporation who may bring any used or second hand motor vehicle into the State of Georgia for the purpose of selling or re-selling, except as a trade-in on a new motor vehicle or another used car" to register such vehicle and give bond also make the scope of the Act doubtful.
The caption of the Act states in part that it is: "An Act to regulate the business of selling used and second hand motor vehicles by nonresidents or persons who have no permanent place of business; . . . to prevent the bringing of an action for recovering of purchase price of such used motor vehicle without compliance with this Act." Thus the caption of the Act shows an intent not to regulate all sales of used motor vehicles brought into the State but only those brought into the State by nonresidents and by residents without permanent places of doing business, and prohibits the use of courts by such a seller to recover the purchase price or the vehicle from a purchaser, and does not authorize a person who obtains possession of such a vehicle for the purpose of making repairs, in effect, to confiscate such vehicle with impunity.
It being stipulated in the case sub judice that no sale had taken place or been intended between the parties the trial court properly overruled the defendant's plea in bar based on the Act of 1937, supra.
Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.