Fears v. Watson
| Decision Date | 05 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 37.) |
| Citation | 187 S.W. 178 |
| Parties | FEARS v. WATSON. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; W. J. Driver, Judge.
Replevin by B. M. Fears against R. L. Watson. Judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict, and the plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
M. P. Huddleston, Robert E. Fuhr, and J. M. Futrell, all of Paragould, for appellant.
B. M. Fears sued R. L. Watson in replevin to recover some wire fencing, some pump pipe, and a pump point. The material facts are as follows:
John Zollman leased certain lands from R. L. Watson. During the life of the lease, Zollman purchased from Bertig Bros. some wire fencing, a pump point, and some pump pipe for the sum of $13.60; for which he executed a note due October 15, 1914. Ben Fears signed the note as surety. The note contained the following:
"It is expressly agreed that the title and ownership of all said property shall remain in Bertig Bros. until the full purchase price is paid," etc.
The note was made on the regular printed form prepared and used by Bertig Bros. when they sold personal property and retained title in themselves until it was paid for. On the back of the note was indorsed the following:
pump .................................. 13.60
pipe .................................. .75
_____
point ................................. 14.35
-----
wire
Bertig Bros. assigned the note to Ben Fears, and also gave him a bill of sale of the personal property above described. After the articles were purchased by Zollman, he attached them to the leased property. It was shown by parol evidence that Bertig Bros. did not intend to retain title to the articles in question, but that form of note was used because it happened to be lying upon the desk at the time the purchase was made. The court directed a verdict for the defendant Watson, and the plaintiff, Fears, has appealed.
In the case of Peck-Hammond Co. v. Walnut Ridge School Dist., 93 Ark. 77, 123 S. W. 771, where a heating apparatus was sold to the contractor of a public schoolhouse, to be installed there upon condition that the title should remain in the vendor until the purchase price was paid, but the school board had no knowledge of such condition, and the apparatus was installed in the building, it was held that the reservation of title could not be enforced. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hachmeister v. Power Mfg. Co.
...owners of the freehold and deprive the conditional vendor, the Power Company, of its title and right to such machinery. Fears v. Watson, 124 Ark. 341, 187 S. W. 178. 2. On the cross-appeal, it appears that there were two 100 horse power crank shafts with counterweights for engine No. 885 an......
-
Thos. Cox & Sons Machinery Co. v. Blue Trap Rock Co.
...articles in controversy were fixtures to which the Company had acquired title by virtue of its ownership of the soil. See Fears v. Watson, 124 Ark. 342, 187 S. W. 178, and cases there On the other hand, if appellant sold Fulton machinery and reserved the title thereto, which machinery appel......