Cragun Bros. v. Todd
| Decision Date | 11 July 1906 |
| Parties | CRAGUN BROS. v. TODD AND KRAFT, A. H. TODD AND GEORGE KRAFT, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. A. H. MCVEY, Judge.
SUIT to recover the price of a car load of fruit. Trial to a jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Carr Hewitt, Parker & Wright, for appellants.
Berryhill & Henry, for appellees.
The plaintiffs are engaged in the fruit business at Hot Springs, Utah, and the defendants are in the same business at Des Moines. On the 2d day of September, 1900, the defendants, through their agent, contracted with the plaintiffs for a car load of peaches, which were to be shipped to the defendants at Des Moines, with the right of inspection. the price agreed upon was f. o. b. at Hot Springs, Utah. Soon thereafter a car of peaches was shipped, the bill of lading was placed in the plaintiffs' bank in Hot Springs, and a sight draft was drawn on the defendants for the price of the peaches. The draft, with the bill of lading was then sent to a bank in Des Moines with instructions to collect the draft before the bill of lading was delivered. The car arrived in Des Moines about a week after it left Hot Springs, and upon inspection the day of its arrival there some of the peaches were found in bad condition. Negotiations by telegram followed, but no subsequent agreement was reached, and the peaches were finally turned over to another party by the plaintiffs and sold on their account and at a loss to them. This suit was brought to recover the contract price. The evidence is quite conclusive that the fruit was in good condition when it was loaded and shipped, and it is as conclusively shown that some of it was in bad condition when it reached Des Moines. The question whether the sale was complete when the fruit was delivered to the carrier was therefore an important factor in the case, and it was submitted to the jury for its finding thereon.
The appellants urge that, under the undisputed facts, the court should have held that title did not then pass to the defendants, and that it was error to allow the jury to determine the question. This contention must be sustained. The bill of lading accompanied the sight draft and was not to be delivered until the draft was paid. An acceptance and payment of the draft were therefore necessary before the defendants could claim the bill of lading or insist on the delivery of the car to them, and there is no evidence to take the case out of the rule that, under such circumstances, the presumption arises that the vendors intended to retain title in themselves, and that such presumption must be considered as conclusive until rebutted. There is not only no rebutting testimony, but, on the other hand, the acts of both parties subsequent to the arrival of the car in Des Moines, strengthen this presumption as to the intent. Forcheimer & Co. v. Stewart, 65 Iowa 593, 22 N.W. 886; National Bank v. State Bank, 93 Iowa 650, 61 N.W. 1065; Dows v. National Exchange Bank, 91 U.S. 618, (23 L.Ed. 214); Willman Mercantile Co. v. Fussy, 15 Mont. 511, (39 P. 738, 48 Am. St. Rep. 698).
It is of course, true, as contended by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial