Hempy

In loaning the now bankrupt Lee company in excess of $7,000, the Bank of Tokyo took as security two passenger cars and one light truck belonging to the debtor. The vehicles, by the terms of the note, were “assign [ed], transfer [red] and deliver [ed]” to the bank. The debt- or retained possession of the cars and truck. Promptly after the pledge was made, the Department of Motor Vehicles of the state of California issued certificates of ownership, each reciting that the bank was the legal owner and the debtor-partnership was the registered owner.

*94 There was no compliance by the debtor or creditor with Section 2956 1 of the Civil Code of California, but the pattern followed did comply with Sections 195-198 2 of California’s Vehicle Code. *

Appellant makes an argument, with considerable logical merit, that the Vehicle Code does not exempt a lien on an automobile from Section 2956 of the Civil Code. If such be true, the referee in holding against the validity of the lien was correct. However, the district court on the authority of Embree Uranium Co. v. Liebel, 169 Cal.App.2d 256 , 337 P.2d 159 , on review, reversed the referee.

The Embree case is squarely in point. But it is…