Deutsch v. Dunham
Decision Date | 16 January 1904 |
Citation | 78 S.W. 767,72 Ark. 141 |
Parties | DEUTSCH v. DUNHAM |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge.
Affirmed.
McCulloch & McCulloch, for appellant.
The sale was complete, and the title passed, when the lumber was delivered and appellant had offered to inspect and pay for same. Generally speaking, the time of transfer of title is dependent upon the intention of the parties. Tied. Sales § 84; 111 Mass. 10; 1 Mechem, Sales, § 511. But where the goods are such as the buyer is bound by his contract to accept, and nothing remains after delivery but to ascertain the price, the title passes at once on delivery. I Mechem, Sales, §§ 512, 519; 39 Ill. 31; Ib. 195; 65 Id. 322; 2 Duv. (Ky.) 87; 37 N.H. 428. The court erred in instructing the jury that inspection was essential to pass title to the lumber, because the measurement was to be done merely to determine the amount to be paid. 39 Ark 71; 37 Ark. 483; 100 U.S. 135; 71 N.Y. 291; 2 N.Y. 258; 58 Ill. 373; 43 S.W. 223; Ib. 222; 49 S.W. 14; 29 Tex. 204; 13 Pick. 182; 20 Id. 283; 20 Mo. 560; 69 Md. 537; 56 S.W. 506; 104 Ala. 236; 81 Ind. 512; 29 Wis. 537; 58 Pa.St 103.
H. F. Roleson and N.W. Norton, for appellees.
Title does not pass so long as anything remains to be done. 25 Ark. 547; 1 Pars. Cont. 527; Benj. Sales, §§ 869, 870; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 612; 26 Ark. 394; 5 Ark. 164; 67 Ark. 135; 17 N.W. 136; Baker, Sales, § 299. The question is not whether a party ought to accept, but whether he really has accepted. 25 Ark. 347. Appellants, by their refusal to accept the inspection and pile and deliver the lumber, repudiated the contract, and the title did not pass. 176 Pa.St. 291; 41 N.W. 27; 22 Wall. 280. The title did not pass as long as something remained to be done. 100 U.S. 124; 25 P. 360; 25 Pa. 989.
Albert Deutsch commenced an action of replevin against Dunham & Nelson to recover the possession of certain oak and gum lumber described in his complaint. The defendants denied that he was the owner or entitled to the possession of the lumber. The issues were tried by a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
The oak lumber was claimed by appellant under a written contract between him and appellees, dated March 27, 1899, which is as follows:
The prices agreed upon in the written contract were to be paid for sixteen different kinds and grades of lumber. The $ 600 were loaned by appellant to appellees to purchase the mill mentioned in the contract, and have been returned to him.
Evidence tending to prove substantially the following facts was adduced. Two men were sent by appellant, at different times, to appellees' mill to examine lumber sawed by them. George Lorraine was first sent to examine gum lumber. The lumber was not piled. He estimated the amount, and refused to include in his estimate certain "culls." Appellees objected, and refused to accept his inspection, and declined to deliver the lumber to appellant. Albert Lorraine was the other man. The lumber examined by him was not in piles, but in stocks. He estimated the quality of lumber sawed. He says that there was no way to determine from his estimate the value of the lumber. Appellees objected to his examination of the lumber, and refused to accept it and to deliver the lumber to appellant, but sold it to other persons. The parties failed to agree upon inspection, and no satisfactory inspection was made. Appellant offered to send other inspectors, but all his offers were declined. He agreed that appellees might sell the gum lumber to other persons, and they did so.
His contention is stated in his brief as follows: "That as soon as the lumber was sawed and delivered at the place of delivery stipulated in the contract, and appellant had offered to inspect and pay for same, the sale was complete, and the contract was no longer executory, but executed, and that the title had passed to appellant, so that he could sue for possession." Is this contention correct in this case?
The contract upon which appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
N. P. Sloan Company v. Barham
... ... chattels and the title does not pass until there has been ... such a delivery. Hodges v. Nall, 66 Ark ... 139; Deutsch v. Dunham, 72 Ark. 141, 78 ... S.W. 767." ... The ... statement of the law quoted must be read, however, in the ... light of ... ...
-
Pugsley v. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Company
...involved in this appeal were yet to be manufactured, and the title to them did not therefore pass on the making of the contract. Deutsch v. Dunham, 72 Ark. 141; Comfort v. Kiersted, 26 Barb. 472; Parsons v. Woodward, 22 N. J. L. 196; McConihe v. Railroad, 20 N.Y. 495; Iron Co. v. Pope, 108 ......
-
Georgia Marble Finishing Works v. Minor
... ... consummation of a sale of chattels and the title does not ... pass until there has been such a delivery. Hodges v ... Nall, 66 Ark. 135; Deutsch v ... Dunham, 72 Ark. 141, 78 S.W. 767 ... The ... evidence adduced in the case as brought forward in the ... abstract is ... ...
-
Byrd v. Baker-Matthews Lumber Co.
...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 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......