*440 Defendants' second point on appeal was not raised in the trial court and involves an evidentiary matter, which was neither included in the stipulation nor otherwise presented, e.g., by affidavit; so it cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.
Defendants' third point on appeal, although raised in their pleadings and assertedly argued before the trial court, was not specifically resolved by the trial court. However, the allegations would constitute a direct contradiction of the facts as stipulated by the parties in paragraph 5 of their Stipulation of Facts, and the action of the trial court is consistent with the stipulation.
HALL, J., concurs.
OAKS, J., concurs with the main opinion and also with the concurring opinion of HOWE, J.
HOWE, Justice (concurring):
I concur with the following comment: Defendants contend that they should not be held liable for innocently delivering a void title because the only provision of the Motor Vehicle Dealer's Act dealing with a stolen vehicle is Section 41-3-23(3), and that there is no violation under this sub-section unless the dealer knowingly sells a stolen vehicle. That sub-section provides:
(a) It shall be unlawful and a violation of this act for the holder of any license issued under the terms and provisions hereof:
.....
(3) to knowingly purchase, sell, transport, dismantle or otherwise acquire, dispose of or handle a stolen motor vehicle.

### Language ###
English

### Assessment ###
We can ask about which judge specifically concurred with both the main opinion and another judge's opinion, as this is a clear factual detail from the text.

### Query ###
Which Supreme Court Justice agreed with both the main opinion and Justice Howe's opinion?
Which Supreme Court Justice agreed with both the main opinion and Justice Howe's opinion?