Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | DAVIS |
| Citation | 97 N.E. 377,85 Ohio St. 196 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1911 |
| Parties | HALLET & DAVIS PIANO CO. v. STARR PIANO CO. |
85 Ohio St. 196
97 N.E. 377
HALLET & DAVIS PIANO CO.
v.
STARR PIANO CO.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Dec. 12, 1911.
Error to Circuit Court, Cuyahoga County.
Action by the Starr Piano Company against the Hallet & Davis Piano Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error.
Between the parties to a sale of specific goods, especially where the price has been paid, a presumption arises that the title has passed, without a delivery of the goods.
Such a presumption does not ordinarily arise as against creditors or innocent purchasers from the vendor; but as to such third parties there must be not only a formal delivery to the vendee claiming the goods, but there must be an actual and visible change of possession.
Where a commercial transaction, which should ordinarily be completed promptly, is not completed within four months, and neither party has done anything within that time to complete the same, either party may treat the contract as rescinded.
[Ohio St. 197]H. W. Bell and Wm. Howell, for plaintiff in error.
DAVIS, J.
The defendant in error entered into an agreement with one Blanche English for the sale and purchase of a piano. The memorandum of the agreement, which was signed by Miss English, did not state when or where the piano was to be delivered, nor when or how payment should be made, except ‘$_____ allowed for Harvard piano.’ At the same time, the purchaser gave to the defendant in error a paper, transferring [Ohio St. 199]her full right to ownership of one Harvard piano, ‘with the understanding that said Harvard piano is to be sold by the said Starr Piano Company and full amount received by them to be placed to my credit as part payment on one Starr piano, which I am this day ordering from said Starr Piano Company.’ The agreement was entered into at Canton, Ohio; but the Harvard piano was at the house of a person in Alliance, Ohio. There was some talk between the parties about a written order for delivery of the Harvard piano to the defendant in error, but, in the language of the salesman of the defendant in error: ‘That part of the order was never completed. It was taken for granted that every thing was satisfactory. She told me she would notify these people of the transaction, and that we could get the piano when we liked.’ The piano, which was agreed to be sold by the defendant in error, was never delivered to the purchaser nor tendered to her; nor did the defendant ever take possession of the Harvard piano, or sell it and credit the proceeds on the purchase money for the other piano. More than four months after the defendant in error and Miss English entered into this agreement, the plaintiff in error, without knowledge of the preceding facts, sold to her a piano, and agreed to receive, and did thereupon take into its possession, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dublin v. Friedman, No. 16AP–516
...of intent or reasonableness may be necessary to supply the missing term." Id. , citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. , 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. 377 (1911). {¶ 38} CHKRS and Friedman entered into a residential lease with an option to purchase on July 29, 2015; the lease term wa......
-
Seneca Valley, Inc. v. Village of Caldwell, No. 304.
...of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 15 OBR 448, 474 N.E.2d 271, citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. (1911), 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. {¶ 29} Appellant's first assignment of error asserts: {¶ 30} "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee Village of Caldwel......
-
Seneca Valley, Inc. v. Village of Caldwell, 2004 Ohio 1730 (Ohio App. 3/30/2004), Case No. 304.
...of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 15 OBR 448, 474 N.E.2d 271, citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. (1911), 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. {¶29} Appellant's first assignment of error asserts: {¶30} "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee village of caldwell'......
-
Am. Steel City Indus. Leasing v. Bloom Land Co., 2021-T-0013
...Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978), superseded by statute on other grounds, and Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co., 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. 377 (1911). {¶12} "In all cases involving contract interpretation, we start with the primary interpretive rule that courts should ......
-
City of Dublin v. Friedman, No. 16AP–516
...of intent or reasonableness may be necessary to supply the missing term." Id. , citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. , 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. 377 (1911). {¶ 38} CHKRS and Friedman entered into a residential lease with an option to purchase on July 29, 2015; the lease term wa......
-
Seneca Valley, Inc. v. Village of Caldwell, No. 304.
...of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 15 OBR 448, 474 N.E.2d 271, citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. (1911), 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. {¶ 29} Appellant's first assignment of error asserts: {¶ 30} "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee Village of Caldwel......
-
Seneca Valley, Inc. v. Village of Caldwell, 2004 Ohio 1730 (Ohio App. 3/30/2004), Case No. 304.
...of Ohio, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 15 OBR 448, 474 N.E.2d 271, citing Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co. (1911), 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. {¶29} Appellant's first assignment of error asserts: {¶30} "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee village of caldwell'......
-
Am. Steel City Indus. Leasing v. Bloom Land Co., 2021-T-0013
...Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978), superseded by statute on other grounds, and Hallet & Davis Piano Co. v. Starr Piano Co., 85 Ohio St. 196, 97 N.E. 377 (1911). {¶12} "In all cases involving contract interpretation, we start with the primary interpretive rule that courts should ......