The opinion
O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I view the controlling issue in this case somewhat differently than do my colleagues.
The majority opinion reverses on the ground of erroneous instructions. I do not agree.
The trial judge instructed the jury almost verbatim in the words of the statute. It is true that appellant objected to the instructions as given and properly preserved the objection.
I do not, however, find a requested instruction on the precise point upon which reversal is founded, namely what "at the time of delivery to him”, as used in the statute, means. The judge certainly could not charge under the holding in Schomberg v Bayly, 259 Mich 135 (1932), cited by the majority.
*555 In Schomberg the accident occurred on June 24. On June 20 the concerned defendant, four days before the accident, delivered the properly executed assignment-certificate to the Detroit branch office of the Secretary of State. All of the controversy as to the claimed liability of the five defendants arose after the assignment was admittedly made. The question there was who was liable for damages inflicted by the negligent operation of the involved motor vehicle in the interim between the time at which the buyer applied for a new registration and the time at which he received it. I am not at all sure that Schomberg is relevant, much less controlling.
In simple substance, this case presented a classical disputed question of fact as to which witnesses not only contradicted, each other, but one witness contradicted himself. I think the trial judge did exactly what he should have done, submitted the whole thing to the jury.
Be it remembered that in this case the involved title was never produced nor admitted as an exhibit at trial. The question here was not only when delivery of a properly executed title was made but whether the assignment was even properly executed in the first place. This is exactly the issue that the trial judge placed before the jury in his charge.
I vote to affirm.