J. W. Cox Motor Sales Co. v. Goodcell
J. W. COX MOTOR SALES CO. v. GOODCELL, former Collector of Internal Revenue
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cosgraye (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a dispute over whether an automobile dealer who modified a car at the request of purchasers was a 'manufacturer' under the applicable statute. The court held that the plaintiff was not a manufacturer and ordered judgment for the plaintiff.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Judgment for the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not a manufacturer.“I think, therefore, that the plaintiff cannot be held to be a manufacturer and should have judgment.” | agree with court The court distinguishes the cited authority based on the specific facts that the plaintiff was a dealer making changes at the request of purchasers, rather than creating a new vehicle from separate components. The conclusion that the plaintiff is not a manufacturer follows from the factual findings recited in the order regarding the nature of the plaintiff's business and the vehicle's use. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short memorandum opinion that relies on a single case to distinguish the facts. It reaches a defensible result based on the distinction between manufacturing (creating a new product) and modifying an existing product at the customer's request. However, it is brief and does not cite the specific statute or broader legal principles defining 'manufacturer' beyond the one case distinguished.
Opinion — Cosgraye
COSGRAYE, District Judge.
It does not seem to me that Klepper v. Carter (C. C. A.) 286 F. 370; can be considered authority here. In the Klepper Case part of the truck was purchased from one manufacturer and the bodies from another. Klepper caused a truck to exist where none existed before and was a dealer in trucks. Here the plaintiff was an automobile dealer, and at the request of individual purchasers made changes in the automobile. It was at no time used as a truck; that is, for the carriage of freight or merchandise as distinguished from the transportation of passengers. Its use after as before the change was to transport persons with some inconsequential tools. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff cannot be held to be a manufacturer and should have judgment.
Plaintiff will prepare and submit findings in accordance with this memorandum.