Bent v. Jerkins
| Decision Date | 25 June 1896 |
| Citation | 112 Ala. 485,20 So. 655 |
| Parties | BENT v. JERKINS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.
Action by George P. Bent against W. J. Jerkins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This was an action of trover brought by the appellant, George P Bent, against the appellee, W. J. Jerkins, to recover damages for the alleged conversion of a piano. The plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he was a manufacturer of organs and pianos, and had sold the piano described in the complaint to T. M. Brantley & Sons, and that he delivered the piano described in the complaint to T. M Brantley & Sons under a contract in writing signed by T. M Brantley & Sons, in which they agreed "to sell the same [said piano] for account of George P. Bent, and account to him, in cash, as soon as sold, for full value as above," and they agreed that said piano should remain the property of Bent until paid for. This writing was introduced in evidence as evidence of the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff further testified that he never received any pay for said piano, and that the same was sold to Brantley & Sons on the terms set out in the contract; that plaintiff did not sell to T. M. Brantley & Sons in the ordinary way of wholesale dealers, because the instruments were sold at retail, one at a time, and taking separate notes, retaining title to each separate instrument, while the ordinary way of selling instruments at wholesale to retail dealers is to ship more than one instrument at a time, and not retain title to same but charge on account. It was further shown for the plaintiff that T. M. Brantley & Sons sold the piano involved in controversy to W. J. Jerkins, the defendant, and that the defendant took control of the same before the commencement of this suit. The defendant introduced J. J. Harrison, who testified that in the year 1891 he was salesman for T. M Brantley & Sons, and that as such salesman he sold the piano described in the note introduced by plaintiff to defendant and took in exchange therefor 202 acres of land; that, by and with the consent of Brantley & Sons he took the deeds to said land in his own name, in payment of wages due him by said Brantley & Sons; that said Brantley & Sons were retail dealers in pianos and other musical instruments at Dothan, Ala., at the time the said piano was shipped them, and when defendant bought same from witness; that plaintiff knew that Brantley & Sons were such retail dealers; that defendant had no notice or knowledge of the existence of the contract between plaintiff and Brantley & Sons, or that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Thompson v. Hill
-
Peasley v. Noble
...is sustained by the following authorities: Winchester Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Carman, 109 Ind. 31, 58 Am. Rep. 382, 9 N.E. 707; Bent v. Jerkins, 112 Ala. 485, 20 So. 655; Wilder Co. v. Wilson, 84 Tenn. 548, 16 Lea Appellant urges that upon a failure on the part of Newland & Co. to make payment, t......
-
Warrant Warehouse Co. v. Cook
... ... 154, 53 ... South, 1014, 33 L. R. A. 374, the court said: ... "The weight of authority, however, and among which are ... our own cases of Bent v. Jerkins and M. & O. R. R. v. Leigh, ... supra, do not confine the waiver or estoppel in favor of ... purchasers in retail or the ordinary course ... ...
-
American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co.
... ... against the original owner, which will in general prevail ... against the latter's reserved title. See Bent v ... Jerkins, 112 Ala. 485, 20 So. 655; 24 Am. & Eng. Ency ... Law (2d Ed.) 1165; 1 Mechem on Sales, §§ 157, 166 ... Where ... one ... ...