Ashton v. Allen

• Decision Date: 09 November 1903
• Citation: 56 A. 165,70 N.J.L. 117
• Parties: ASHTON v. ALLEN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

56 A. 165

70 N.J.L 117

ASHTON

v. ALLEN et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 9, 1903.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Trenton.

Action by John A. Ashton against Jasper H. Allen and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued June term, 1903, before GARRISON, GARRETSON, and SWAYZE, JJ.

Linton Satterthwait, for appellant.

John Sykes, for appellees.

GARRETSON, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered in the district court of Trenton in favor of the defendants. The following are the facts agreed upon by the parties to this suit: On or about August 14, 1901, the plaintiff was possessed of 150 bushels of oats, valued at $69. That some person to the plaintiff unknown, representing himself as the agent of O. O. Bowman, or of O. O. Bowman & Son, requested the plaintiff to deliver the oats at the stable of the said Bowman, saying that the oats were wanted by the said Bowman. That the said unknown person also obtained permission from the said Bowman's servant to have the said oats deposited upon his premises. That the said plaintiff thereupon delivered said oats at the stable of the said Bowman, depositing the same at the entrance of the stable or stable yard of the said Bowman, where the man who was delivering the same was requested to deposit said oats. The said oats were charged upon the books of the plaintiff to the said Bowman. That the said plaintiff did not give credit to said unknown person who represented himself as the agent of the said Bowman, but afterwards the said unknown person procured a conveyance, and carted said oats, which were in bags of said plaintiff, marked with plaintiff's name, from the place where they had been so deposited by the driver of the said plaintiff, and took them to the defendants' place of business, where the defendants, in the usual course of business, purchased the said oats from the said unknown person, who represented himself as the owner thereof, and received pay for the same from the defendants, and the said defendants received possession and retained possession of the said oats. The said defendants were bona fide purchasers of said oats, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any fraud or misdoing upon the part of the said unknown person or any other person in connection with said transaction.

It is clear from the foregoing statement of facts that it was never the intention of the plaintiff to part with his title in or possession of the oats, or to deliver them to the unknown person. His intention was to transfer the title and possession to Bowman. It is not one of those cases in which the owner of goods, relying upon false representations, which he believed to be true, parts with the title and possession of his goods, intending to transfer them to the maker of the false representations. In such cases the title to the goods actually passes out of the owner, and he intends it shall so pass to the one making the false representations. In such...