Richardson Drug Co. v. Raymond

• Decision Date: 18 October 1899
• Citation: 59 Neb. 157,80 N.W. 490
• Parties: RICHARDSON DRUG CO. ET AL. v. RAYMOND ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

59 Neb. 157

80 N.W. 490

RICHARDSON DRUG CO. ET AL.

v.RAYMOND ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 18, 1899.

Syllabus by the Court.

The conditional contract of sale of merchandise involved herein construed, and held not to authorize the vendees to purchase new goods on the credit of the vendors. Drug Co. v. Plummer, 76 N. W. 1086, 56 Neb. 523, followed.

Error to district court, Lancaster county; Tibbets, Judge.

Action by Raymond Bros. & Co. against the Richardson Drug Company and others. From the judgment, certain defendants bring error. Reversed.John P. Maule, for plaintiffs in error.

Geo E. Hibner, for defendants in error.

NORVAL, J.

An action was brought in the court below by Raymond Bros. & Co. against the Richardson Drug Company, the Lincoln Paint & Color Company, Thomas L. Teasdall, and Alice M. Teasdall to recover the purchase price of certain goods and merchandise sold by the plaintiffs to Thomas L. Teasdall. A dismissal was entered as to the Teasdalls, and a trial to the court terminated in a judgment against the other defendants in the sum of $217.96, who have prosecuted this error proceeding.

The defendants against whom a recovery was had in the court below, being the owners of a stock of drugs in the city of Lincoln, on January 27, 1892, sold the same conditionally to the Teasdalls; the parties at the time entering into a written contract, a copy of which is set out in the opinion in Drug Co. v. Teasdall (filed herewith) 80 N. W. 488. The Teasdalls took possession of the goods under said contract, and the business was thereafter carried on in the name of said Thomas L. Teasdall, by whom the goods in controversy herein were purchased. The trial court found that the Teasdalls in making such purchase were the agents of the Richardson Drug Company and the Lincoln Paint & Color Company, and that the goods were obtained for their benefit. This finding is now assailed. Aside from the written contract already mentioned, there is not a scintilla of evidence to sustain the finding. This instrument has at least three times been construed by this court as being a contract for the conditional sale of merchandise. Drug Co. v. Teasdall, 52 Neb. 698, 72 N. W. 1028; Same v. Plummer, 56 Neb. 523, 76 N. W. 1086; Same v. Teasdall (herewith decided) 80 N. W. 488. The case under consideration is parallel with Drug Co. v. Plummer, 56 Neb. 523, 76 N. W. 1086. In that case it was sought to recover from the Richardson Drug Company and the Lincoln...