Haynes v. Temple

• Decision Date: 04 April 1908
• Citation: 198 Mass. 372,84 N.E. 467
• Parties: HAYNES et al. v. TEMPLE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

198 Mass. 372

84 N.E. 467

HAYNES et al. v. TEMPLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

April 4, 1908

COUNSEL

Alphonso A. Wyman, for plaintiffs.

J. J Shaughnessy and F. P. O'Donnell, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The price to be paid for the horses was $400, of which $200 was to be paid in one month, $100 in two months, and $100 in three months from August 22, 1904; and three notes for these respective sums were given. To each note was attached a statement that the horses were 'to be and remain the entire and absolute property of * * * [the defendant] * * * until said note is fully paid, * * * with interest.' It is argued by the plaintffs that upon the payment of either of these notes the title to the horses was to pass to the plaintiffs. But this position is untenable. The delivery of the horses by the seller and the giving of the notes by the buyer were all one transaction; and it is too plain for argument that the intention of the parties, as shown by the papers, was that the title was not to pass until all of the notes were paid, and such was the legal effect of the transaction. Before the third note became due the defendant brought suit on the two which were overdue, and, having recovered judgment, collected the amounts due thereon by a levy upon real estate of the plaintiffs. The question on this branch of the case is whether his action in doing this is inconsistent with his right to insist that the title to the horses still remains in him.

Plainly it is not inconsistent. This is not a case where the seller having, by reason of fraud or otherwise, a right either to take back the goods or sue for the entire price which is due and payable only upon the theory that the title has passed to the buyer, elects to consider the transaction a complete sale and sues for the price. In such a case, the suit for the entire price being inconsistent with the theory that the sale is not absolute, the seller is estopped to set up the claim that the goods remain his property. He cannot have both the price and the goods, and having made his election he must stand by it. Butler v. Hildreth, 5 Metc. 49. Whitney v. Abbott, 191 Mass. 59, 77 N.E. 524. See also, the opinion delivered by Wells, J., in Connihan v. Thompson, 111 Mass. 270.

But this principle is not applicable to the facts shown in the case at bar. Under the contract the defendant at the end of the first month was to receive...