Everett v. Hall
| Decision Date | 03 January 1878 |
| Parties | CHARLES A. EVERETT, administrator, v. JOSEPH W. HALL. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
TROVER for a shingle machine.
Verdict for the plaintiff for $226.10; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
A. G Lebroke, with whom was A. M. Robinson, for the defendant.
C A. Everett, for the plaintiff.
One Pearson purchased a shingle machine, giving the seller a note therefor and a mortgage on the machine to secure the same. The plaintiff is the assignee of the note and mortgage. On the day of the purchase, before the mortgage was recorded Pearson sold the machine to the defendant under an agreement that the title should remain in Pearson until the machine was paid for, the defendant taking and keeping possession. In a few days thereafter the mortgage was recorded, before which something was paid towards the machine by the defendant, and he had fully paid Pearson therefor when this action of trover was instituted to recover its value. On the trial it was ruled, we think correctly, that the title to the machine was in the plaintiff, and that he could recover its full value. The mortgage became effectual to pass the title as soon as it was recorded.
Whether the defendant would have any lien for advances made before the mortgage was recorded, in a court of equity, would depend upon facts and circumstances the weight of which we cannot now determine. Foss v. Haynes, 31 Me. 81. Bragg v. Paulk, 42 Me. 502.
At law, the defendant has no title. It is not material that payments were made towards a title before the title of the plaintiff attached, as long as the payments were not in full. It matters not how near the defendant came to the title, falling short of it. There is no more logic in holding that the defendant got a title when the last dollar only of the consideration was unpaid, than when the first dollar only was paid. Shepard's Touchstone says: The transaction was not strictly a sale, but rather a contract for a sale. The condition unperformed stood in the way of the defendant's title when the plaintiff's title accrued. Property situated as this was could not be attached as the property of the conditional vendee, nor could he sell it. If it could not be sold by the vendor nor attached as his, it could neither be sold nor attached at all. To admit exceptions to the common law rule upon this subject, subverts the rule altogether.
The authorities in this state bear out the doctrine asserted by u...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bergman v. The Indianapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company
...back such portion of the purchase money as the vendor has received. Fleck v. Warner, 25 Kan. 492; Duke v. Shackelford, 56 Miss. 562; Everett v. Hall, 67 Maine, 497; Benj. on Sales Am. Ed.] sec. 429, and cases cited; Robinson v. Baker, 5 Cush. 137. (4) It is only when the vendor gives to the......
-
Redewill v. Gillen
...299; Luey v. Bundy, 9 N.H. 298; Davis v. Emery, 11 N.H. 230; Holt v. Holt, 58 N.H. 276. And in Maine. Sawyer v. Fisher, 32 Me. 28; Everett v. Hall, 67 Me. 497. case of Ballard v. Burgett, supra, was one in which it appeared that Ballard sold to France a yoke of oxen, with the agreement that......
-
Maxwell v. Tufts.
...out of him until the condition precedent has been performed. The transaction is not strictly a sale, but a contract for a sale. Everett v. Hall, 67 Me. 497; 1 Benj. Sales (4th Am. Ed.) § 366; Harkness v. Russell, 118 U. S. 663, 7 Sup. Ct. 51. Following this view, it has been held that the v......
-
Maxwell v. Tufts
...out of him until the condition precedent has been performed. The transaction is not strictly a sale, but a contract for a sale. Everett v. Hall, 67 Me. 497; 1 Benj. (4th Am. Ed.) § 366; Harkness v. Russell, 118 U.S. 663, 7 S.Ct. 51. Following this view, it has been held that the vendor's ti......