Cable Co. v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 29 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 12850.,12850. |
| Citation | 203 S.W. 211 |
| Parties | CABLE CO. v. ELLIOTT |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Vernon County ; B. G. Thurmond, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Replevin by the Cable Company against A. E. Elliott. Judgment for plaintiff in the circuit court on appeal from justice court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A. E. Elliott, of Nevada, Mo., for appellant. W. M. Bowker, of Nevada, Mo., for respondent.
This is a replevin suit, brought in a justice court to recover possession of a piano. Upon appeal to the circuit court the case was tried, and judgment went in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Plaintiff, engaged in the piano business, had placed the piano in the possession of one J. E. Roberts under a contract of bailment. The title to the piano remained at all times in the plaintiff, and while Roberts was to sell the piano and account for the proceeds, yet the plaintiff had the right to repossess itself of the piano at any time.
Defendant, as attorney for the Illinois Sewing Machine Company, obtained a judgment against Roberts, and was about to levy execution thereunder when Roberts turned the piano over to defendant under an agreement that the latter would hold said piano until Roberts could effect a sale thereof. The execution was then to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale and the balance paid to Roberts, defendant agreeing that in the meantime he would withhold levy of execution.
There is no question but that the title to the piano never was in Roberts; he was a mere bailee thereof and had no authority to turn the piano over in satisfaction of an execution against himself, nor could a creditor of Roberts levy upon same for the satisfaction of his debt, as against the owner of the piano. Packard Piano Co. v. Williams, 167 Mo. App. 515, 151 ;S. W. 211; Peet v. Spencer, 90 Mo. 384, 2 S. W. 434 ; Mansour v. Caulfield, 160 Mo. App. 324, 142 S. W. 770. Roberts' debt to the Sewing Machine Company was not created on the strength of the ownership of the piano ; there was no question of any fraud of that kind.
The judgment is affirmed. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Globe Securities Co. v. Gardner Motor Co.
...Gilbert Book Co. v. Sheridan, 114 Mo.App. 332; Weir Plow Co. v. Porter, 82 Mo. 23; Kingman Plow Co. v. Joyce, 194 Mo.App. 367; Cable Co. v. Elliott, 203 S.W. 211; Wheeler & Wilson v. Givan, 65 Mo. 89; Union of Trenton v. First. Natl. Bank of Milan, 64 Mo.App. 253; Platt v. Francis, 247 Mo. ......