No title? No problem! Well......
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:50 amThe actual problem ISN'T the title on the 1942 Chevy truck... its that there is no VIN number Permanently affixed. And Chevy 1.5 tons may or may not have a frame stamping.. so without a data plate (which can be removed) things get interesting.
http://www.vintageautomotive.net/?tag=n ... itle-in-pa
This is a VERY interesting article by a lawyer who is also a car collector.
Now this really applies to PA only, but did you know that in PA, the TITLE does not mean you own the car? Gotta love the legal system!
[i]n Braham & Co. v. Steinard-Hannon Motor Co., 97 Pa.Super. 19, 23 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1929), though it involved the interpretation of earlier legislation concerning motor vehicles, the following language of Judge, later President Judge, Keller is nonetheless pertinent and applicable to The Vehicle Code of the present day: ‘It is clear that the primary purpose of the Act of 1923, supra, was to protect the public against the theft of automobiles and their resale by the thief, and to facilitate the recovery of stolen automobiles. It was a police measure, and was not designed to establish the ownership or proprietorship of the car, * * *.’ And at page 25, of 97 Pa.Super. Judge Keller said: ‘It follows that the act does not provide nor intends to provide that the ‘certificate of title’ shall determine the absolute ownership of the car, or alter or affect in any manner the actual ownership of the vehicle and the relations of the persons interested in it. It only requires registration by the person entitled to its possession and in control of its operation. The certificate is not a warrant of ownership or muniment of title as usually understood in the law. It may be relevant evidence in establishing such title.
http://www.vintageautomotive.net/?tag=n ... itle-in-pa
This is a VERY interesting article by a lawyer who is also a car collector.
Now this really applies to PA only, but did you know that in PA, the TITLE does not mean you own the car? Gotta love the legal system!
[i]n Braham & Co. v. Steinard-Hannon Motor Co., 97 Pa.Super. 19, 23 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1929), though it involved the interpretation of earlier legislation concerning motor vehicles, the following language of Judge, later President Judge, Keller is nonetheless pertinent and applicable to The Vehicle Code of the present day: ‘It is clear that the primary purpose of the Act of 1923, supra, was to protect the public against the theft of automobiles and their resale by the thief, and to facilitate the recovery of stolen automobiles. It was a police measure, and was not designed to establish the ownership or proprietorship of the car, * * *.’ And at page 25, of 97 Pa.Super. Judge Keller said: ‘It follows that the act does not provide nor intends to provide that the ‘certificate of title’ shall determine the absolute ownership of the car, or alter or affect in any manner the actual ownership of the vehicle and the relations of the persons interested in it. It only requires registration by the person entitled to its possession and in control of its operation. The certificate is not a warrant of ownership or muniment of title as usually understood in the law. It may be relevant evidence in establishing such title.