Connor v. Giles

• Decision Date: 05 May 1884
• Citation: Connor v. Giles, 76 Me. 132 (Me. 1884)
• Parties: JOHN CONNOR v. JEREMIAH T. GILES.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

76 Me. 132

JOHN CONNOR v. JEREMIAH T. GILES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 5, 1884

ON EXCEPTIONS.

Trover for the alleged conversion of a horse and wagon.The defendant claimed title to the property under a mortgage dated October 4, 1881, and duly recorded October 20, 1881.

The verdict was for the defendant.The other material facts are stated in the opinion.

B L. Smith, for the plaintiff, contended that the transactions of October 18, 1881, transferred the title of the property to the plaintiff, that a sale was then perfected, that the parties so intended, and the language and acts of both parties indicated the intention that the seller relinquished all further claim and control as owner and the buyer assumed the same with its consequent liabilities.Bethel S. M. Co. v. Brown,57 Me. 18.

Any mere formal words of delivery and acceptance would have been superfluous, for the case discloses that an arrangement was made at the same time for the seller to keep the horse for the buyer till Saturday following.SeeBrooks v. Powers,15 Mass. 246;Ingalls v. Herrick,108 Mass. 353;Barret v. Goddard, 3 Mason 114;Hotchkiss v Hunt,49 Me. 213;Boynton v. Veazie,24 Me. 286;Weld v. Came,98 Mass. 154;Calkins v. Lockwood,17 Conn. 154;Stinson v. Clark,6 Allen 340;Story, Sales, § § 298, 312, 353, 362;Benjamin, Sales, § § 313-317.

The question should have been submitted to the jury.Houdlette v. Tallman,14 Me. 400;Willard v. Randall,65 Me. 81;Dyer v. Libby,61 Me. 45;Weber v. N. Y. Cent. & c. R. R. Co.58 N.Y. 451

Hale, Emery and Hamlin, for the defendant, cited: Phillips v. Hunnewell,4 Me. 376;Merrill v. Parker,24 Me. 89;Merrill v. Curtis,18 Me. 272;Kohl v. Lynn,34 Mich. 360; Jones, Chat.Mortg. 247.

PETERS C. J.

The question of this case concerns the date when a purchaser, under whom the plaintiff claims, got a completed sale and delivery of a horse.If it was on October 18, 1881, the horse was plaintiff's; if on October 22, 1881, the horse was defendant's.The defendant's mortgage of the horse was recorded between the two dates.The testimony of the purchaser was this: That on the 18th he examined the horse; rode after him with seller; made an offer which was not accepted; the seller drove away; afterwards came back, and says, " make me an offer; " I said, " I will give one hundred and twenty-five dollars; " seller says he will trade for that; I said " I didn't want the horse till Saturday (22nd), and if he would keep him till Saturday,--take his horse and keep him till Saturday, and then you bring him in and you shall have your pay."He says, " all right."On Saturday the seller came in with the horse, and the buyer took him and paid the money.

The court ruled that the jury would not be authorized to find that a sale, completed by delivery, was accomplished before Saturday.We believe that to be right.All was contingent and conditional before that day.There was no delivery until then.The seller had the horse in hand when the conversation about a sale took place, and the horse did not pass out of his possession until Saturday.There was no attempt at delivery of any kind on the 18th.The nearest that the purchaser came to any possession of the horse before Saturday, was riding after him on a trip of trial, after which the parties parted, coming to no agreement.

The plaintiff says that the jury are to ascertain the meaning of the parties when an oral bargain is made.That is correct.The jury are to find what words were used and the meaning of them; thereby finding the facts.By words, and the meaning of words, facts are expressed.If facts (not words merely) are proved or admittted, and are uncontradicted, their legal effect is more often a question of law.A jury is not to be allowed to successfully establish wild or insensible, or perverse or impossible propositions.They are to be advised by the court in some respects.The court may inform them what interpretations of the language used would be possible or permissible, and the jury may decide what idea was intended.This province of the court necessarily results...