Byrd v. Baker-Matthews Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 16 May 1921 |
Docket Number | 334 |
Citation | 230 S.W. 584,148 Ark. 576 |
Parties | BYRD v. BAKER-MATTHEWS LUMBER COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Lake City District; R. H Dudley, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Hawthorne & Hawthorne and A. P. Patton, for appellants.
Under the written contract, title to the lumber levied on did not pass to appellee until all the conditions in the contract had been performed, and for that reason the execution lien of A B. Jones Company took precedence over the claim of appellee.
Title to property does not pass until it has been inspected, where there is a provision in the contract providing for inspection. 72 Ark. 141; 83 Id. 395; 49 Id. 86; 65 Id. 33; 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 111; 36 N.J.L 449; 106 U.S. 505; 37 Pa.St. 187; 72 Miss. 809.
The undisputed testimony shows that the sheriff attached only such lumber as was manufactured and stacked after the execution came into his hands, as he did not attach any lumber that was inspected and marked "Property of Baker-Mathews Lumber Company."
Lamb & Frierson, for appellee.
This case was tried by the court sitting as a jury, by consent of parties, and its findings have all the force and effect and are as conclusive as the findings of a jury and verdict thereon. 60 Ark. 250. The contract for the sale of the lumber was executed and not executory. The sale was complete. 141 Ark. 393-404. The title passed. 20 N.E. 270; 120 N.W. 572. The question of intention as to delivery governs. In case of bulky articles or ponderous ones, actual delivery is not necessary, but constructive delivery is sufficient, which is governed by the intention of the parties. 24 R. C. L. 56; 104 Ark. 344; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 461. 104 Ark. 344, is sustained by many Arkansas cases and cites them. Another strong circumstance indicating delivery is the fact that the lumber was stacked or proper leased to appellee. 24 R. C. L. 57, § 321, and cases cited. 141 Ark. 393. 404; 100 U.S. 124; 103 Ark. 331; 112 Id. 63; 81 Id. 373; 116 F. 261; 100 U.S. 124.
The findings of the court are clear, positive and convincing, and are sustained by uncontradicted evidence and should be sustained.
Appellee instituted suit in replevin against appellants in the Craighead Circuit Court, Lake City District, to recover the possession of forty-two stacks and 50,000 feet of loose lumber, situated at Rhoads Bros. & Co. 's sawmill, about two miles from Black Oak, in said county, claiming to be the owner thereof, which lumber was seized on the first day of April, 1920, by appellant, the sheriff of the county, under an execution issued on a judgment of A. B. Jones Company against Rhoads Bros. & Co. and placed in his hands on the 10th day of March, 1920.
Appellants filed answer, denying that appellee was the owner of the lumber seized, and asserting its right to retain and sell same to satisfy the judgment obtained in said court at the January term in the sum of $ 2,505.43 in favor of A. B. Jones Company against J. T. and W. M. Rhoads, constituting the firm of Rhoads Bros. & Co.
The cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, upon the pleadings and evidence, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for the possession of the lumber seized by appellants under the execution aforesaid, or $ 5,000, its value. From that judgment an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.
The facts, as disclosed by the record, necessary to a determination of the issue involved on this appeal, are as follows: On or about May 12, 1919, appellee procured a lumber manufacturing contract from L. D. Leach & Co. with Rhoads Bros. & Co. for a cash payment of. $ 10,000 and the future delivery of a certain amount of lumber. At the time the manufacturing contract was procured, it obtained title to 800,000 feet of lumber on the mill yard of Rhoads Bros. & Co. On the same day, to-wit. May 12, 1919, appellee entered into a manufacturing contract with Rhoads Bros. & Co. and advanced the firm six or seven thousand dollars in cash on lumber to be thereafter manufactured. The written manufacturing contract, omitting the prices of the different sizes and kinds of lumber, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vance v. Bell
...is a question of intention, manifested by overt acts. 119 Ark. 215; 54 Ark. 304; 62 Ark. 592; 91 Ark. 240; 35 Ark. 304; 102 Ark. 344; 148 Ark. 576; 106 Ark. 483; 54 Ark. 305; U.S. 97, 59 Law Ed. 483. Taking possession under the power in a mortgage is such a delivery as satisfies the statute......
-
J. T. Fargason Company v. Bank of Lepanto
...the same should not be disturbed on appeal. 138 Ark. 172. The finding that the bill of sale passed title to the bank is conclusive. 148 Ark. 576. title to personal property may pass and the sale be complete where it is the intention of the parties to buy and sell, even though there remains ......
- Townsend v. State