WILLIAM C. MAY, APPELLANT,
v.
J. F. KIRK, SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a replevin action to recover an automobile seized under a writ of attachment. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, relying on a companion case, to deny the replevin claim.
No, the appellant is not entitled to recover the automobile. The law places the loss on the party whose conduct enabled the third party to perpetrate the wrong.
“Under the circumstances, it appears that where one of two innocent parties must suffer through the act of a third person — in this case Harrelson — the law should fall upon one who by his conduct created the circumstances which enabled the third party to perpetuate the wrong and cause the loss.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for placing the loss on the appellant due to their conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile was taken from the appellant's possession by the appellee (Sheriff) under a writ of attachment related to a foreclosure action. The appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Inquire cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to the case of May v. Citizens National Bank of Orlando, Fla., 100 So.2d 651. An automobile was taken from appellant’s possession by appel-lee under a writ of attachment in aid of foreclosure issued in the companion case in the lower court. Appellant then instituted this action of replevin to recover the automobile from appellee.
Both parties below filed motions for summary judgment. The lower court granted appellee’s motion, his order stating in part:
“The plaintiff made no inquiry from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner prior to accepting possession of the car, the original certificate and paying for the car in part by cash and in part by financing.
“Under the circumstances, it appears that where one of two innocent parties must suffer through the act of a third person — in this case Harrelson — the law should fall upon one who by his conduct created the circumstances which enabled the third party to perpetuate the wrong and cause the loss. “It appears that the failure of plaintiff or the dealer from whom plaintiff procured the car, to make inquiry from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner in Tallahassee, brought about the loss to plaintiff without any fault or wrongful act on the part of the bank as a lien holder.”
On authority of the opinion filed in the companion case this date, the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and THORNAL and BARKER, A. JJ., concur.