Chorley v. Miles F. Bixler Co.
Decision Date | 31 March 1930 |
Docket Number | 28513 |
Citation | 157 Miss. 177,127 So. 294 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | CHORLEY v. MILES F. BIXLER CO |
SALES. Countermand. Return of goods. Storage of returned goods. Obligation to pay. Under sales contract, sale held complete and not subject to countermand by buyer on delivery of goods to carrier; seller by taking goods returned and storing them for buyer's account held not to release buyer from duty to pay for goods.
Where a persons signs a written contract unambiguous upon its face which provides, "salesmen have no authority to change or add to these terms, except in writing, upon this original order which is subject to our acceptance; not subject to countermand; delivery to carrier is delivery to purchaser purchaser to pay the charges, etc.," and where the seller delivers the goods ordered to the carrier, the buyer has no right to return the goods so ordered, and, if after notice that seller will not rescind, the seller takes the goods returned and places them in a warehouse for the account of the buyer, his so doing does not release the buyer from duty to pay for the goods.
APPEAL from circuit court of Quitman county HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR. Judge.
Action by the Miles F. Bixler Company against Jessie Chorley. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Gore & Gore, of Marks, for appellant.
The seller of goods under contract has three remedies, first, to ship the goods and stand and recover on the contract price, or, second, treat the contract as ended, retain the goods as its own, and sue for the difference between the contract price and the market value at purchaser's residence, or, third, sell the property at the best price obtainable at purchaser's residence if there is a market there, and sue for the difference between the resale price and the contract price. But, the seller cannot hold the goods without complaint or notice to the purchaser that the possession of the goods by the seller is a qualified one and for her account and keep the goods and recover the full contract price.
American Cotton Company v. Herring, 84 Miss. 693, 37 So. 117; Cragen v. Eaton, 133 Miss. 151, 97 So. 532; 35 Cyc., p. 538; Lischoff v. Bargain House, 135 Miss. 449, 100 So. 278; McDonald Cotton Company v. Mayo, 38 So. 372; 24 R. C. L., pp. 86, 87; Strauss v. Furniture Company, 76 Miss. 343, 24 So. 703; Swann v. West, 41 Miss. 104; Thayer Export Lumber Company v. Naylor, 100 Miss. 841, 57 So. 227; Warder v. Pischer, 110 Wis. 363, 85 N.W. 968; Walker Bros. v. Daggett, 115 Miss. 657, 76 So. 569.
Where the seller holds the property for an unreasonable time after breach of the contract, he will be held to have elected to treat it as his own.
Guy v. United States, 25 Ct. Cl. 61.
E. C. Black, of Marks, for appellee.
Where goods are shipped by sellers in full compliance with contract and buyer refuses to accept said shipment and same is returned to seller, who holds same for the account of buyer after notice to her of its refusal to rescind the contract the buyer is liable for the contract price.
American Cotton Company v. Herring, 84 Miss. 693, 37 So. 117; Swann v. West, 41 Miss. 104; Walker Bros. & Company v. Daggett, 115 Miss. 657, 76 So. 569.
Argued orally by W. E. Gore, for appellant.
Miles F. Bixler Company, appellee, sued the appellant, Miss Jessie Chorley, in the county court on a contract order for one hundred sixty-four dollars; a copy of the written contract being made an exhibit to the declaration. It was alleged that the goods, wares, and merchandise ordered in the said contract were delivered to the defendant on the 12th day of June, 1928; that under the said contract the defendant had the option to pay for the goods in six equal amounts, due two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve months from date of invoice, otherwise the full amount to be due sixty days from date of invoice; that the defendant failed to exercise her option to pay said account in installments, but elected to take the sixty days; that the said sixty days had long since expired, and plaintiff demanded judgment for one hundred sixty-four dollars, with six per cent. interest.
Exhibit A to the declaration is the written order listing the assortment of jewelry, etc., ordered, amounting to one hundred sixty-four dollars. After itemizing the articles, the order reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brenard Mfg. Co. v. Miller & Robinson
...promise for a valid promise, each being a consideration for the other. Couret v. Conner, 118 Miss. 374, 79 So. 230; Chorley v. Miles F. Bixler Co. (Miss.) 127 So. 294, 296; Brenard Mfg. Co. v. 141 Miss. 762, 105 So. 762. 2. What has been said with reference to whether or not the contract wa......
- Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Turner
- Perrault v. White Sewing Mach. Co.