Colton v. Decker
South Dakota Supreme Court
540 N.W.2d 172 (1995)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
In 1984, Lee Decker (defendant) purchased a 1975 Peterbilt truck in Minnesota. At some point, the truck was modified to a longer length, and it was repaired after being wrecked. Decker later transferred the truck’s title to South Dakota. In 1989, John Colton (plaintiff) worked for Decker as a truck driver. After spending time driving the Peterbilt, Colton purchased the truck from Decker for $22,000. Colton financed the purchase with a loan from Marquette Bank of Sioux Falls. On August 22, 1991, while driving in Wyoming, Colton was stopped by the police for speeding. The police inspected the truck and discovered that the vehicle-identification number (VIN) physically stamped on the truck did not match the VIN on the title. The police impounded the truck on suspicion that the truck might be stolen, and the truck became inoperable after being dismantled and exposed to the elements over the winter. After an investigation, Colton was determined to be the true owner, and a Wyoming court ordered that a new Wyoming title be issued to clarify the correct VIN. Marquette Bank of Sioux Falls, however, refused to release the South Dakota title, which was its collateral for Colton’s loan. Colton sued Decker for breaches of warranty of title, warranty of merchantability, and express warranty of description. A South Dakota circuit court ruled that Decker breached the warrant of title, and Decker appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Konenkamp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.