Hallett v. Parrish
| Decision Date | 13 November 1897 |
| Citation | 51 P. 109,5 Idaho 496 |
| Parties | HALLETT v. PARRISH |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
UNLAWFUL TRANSFERS.-Where L. sold a quantity of wheat to H., and M on September 3, 1895, no delivery thereof having been made nor any change of possession, and on the 23d of the same month defendant levied an execution against L. upon said wheat; held, that the sale to H. and M. was void as to creditors under the provisions of section 3021 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.
Affirmed, with costs. Cause remanded to the district court.
James W. Reid, and Burleigh & Green, for Appellants.
Make no argument nor cite any authorities upon the point decided by the court.
S. S Denning and George W. Coutts, for Respondent.
Where the contract is for the sale of unascertained goods the contract is executory, and no property is thereby transferred. Where the goods which are the subject matter of a contract of sale are part of a specific stock from which they have not been separated, no property passes until separation. In executed contracts the title passes to the buyer; in unexecuted contracts the title remains in the seller. ( In the order granting a new trial no specific grounds are alleged, and therefore we take it to be under the ruling as laid down in Curtiss v. Starr, 85 Cal. 376, 24 P. 806; Sherman v. Mitchell, 46 Cal. 577; Jacksha v. Gilbert, 4 Idaho 738, 44 P. 555. Where goods are purchased out of a certain bulk or mass, and there is no assessment or appropriation of the specific goods sold, or that anything remains to be done to the property purchased, such as weighing, selecting or counting, that the contract then, under these circumstances, is executory and not an executed contract. This is the rule of California, Oregon, Washington and nearly all the Pacific states. (Eglee Cotton Cases, 22 Wall. 180, 21 Am. & Eng. Ency of Law, p. 485; Hubler v. Gaston, 9 Or. 66, 42 Am. Rep. 794.)
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. On the third day of September, 1895, the plaintiffs, being partners under the firm name of Hallett & Morrison, purchased of one C. J. Landon "seven thousand bushels of O. K., No. 1, marketable wheat, to be delivered at top of tramway on or before sixty days; loss or damage by fire to be carried by the party of the first part." This sale was evidenced by an instrument in writing signed by C. J. Landon, attested with his seal, witnessed by Fred W. Hallett, one of the plaintiffs, and acknowledged before him as notary. On the 23d of September, 1895, the defendant, as constable, levied an execution (issued by a justice of the peace of said county upon a judgment against said C. J. Landon) upon, and seized, eight hundred sacks of wheat upon the premises, and in the possession of said C. J. Landon. Plaintiffs brought an action to recover the wheat so levied upon by defendant, or its value. The case was tried by a jury, and verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was granted by the district court. From the order of the district court granting a new trial, this appeal is taken.
The transcript in this case is quite voluminous, and very many errors in the admission of testimony are alleged; but, in the view we take of the case, it will be unnecessary to review them. We think our statutes, and the repeated decisions of this court thereon, are conclusive. (Harkness v Smith, 3 Idaho 221, 28 P. 423.) Section 3021 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho provides: "Every transfer of personal property other than a thing in action, and every lien thereon, other than a mortgage, when allowed by law, is conclusively presumed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweetland v. Oakley State Bank
...10 Okla. 262, 61 P. 1070; Davis v. Patterson, 69 Colo. 226, 193 P. 662; Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809; Hallet v. Parrish, 5 Idaho 496, 51 P. 109; Bell v. McClellan, 67 Cal. 283, 7 P. When the property is susceptible of it, there must be an actual, open, visible and notorious......
-
Brown v. Herrick
... ... creditors of and purchasers from the vendor." [34 Idaho ... 176] (C. S., sec. 5434; Johnson v. Sage, 4 Idaho ... 758, 44 P. 641; Hallett v. Parrish, 5 Idaho 496, 51 ... P. 109; Coombs v. Collins, 6 Idaho 536, 57 P. 310.) ... From ... what has been said it follows that the ... ...
-
Coombs v. Collins
... ... 3021; ... Harkness v. Smith, 5 Idaho 321, 28 P. 423, ... construing said section; Lawrence v. Burnham, 4 Nev ... 361, 97 Am. Dec. 540; Hallett v. Parrish, 5 Idaho ... 496, 51 P. 109.) Whatever may be the general rule, it is well ... settled that in such a case as this a demand is ... ...
-
Peterson v. Merritt
...court in Coombs v. Collins, 6 Idaho 536, 57 P. 310; Pecotte v. Oliver, 2 Idaho 251, 10 P. 302; Roth v. Duvall, 1 Idaho 149; Hallett v. Parrish, 5 Idaho 496, 51 P. 109. general rule is that an executive officer is protected from liability for false imprisonment by a warrant which is valid on......