Holliday v. Burgess
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 2979,34 Ill. 193 |
| Parties | JOHN C. HOLLIDAY and HIRAM REEDv.HENRIETTA BURGESS, Executrix of JAMES BURGESS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of Kankakee County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Lorraine & Bonfield and Leland & Blanchard, for appellants.
Glover, Cook & Campbell, for appellee.
This is an action of replevin for a quantity of corn. The plaintiffs claim title to it under a purchase from Augustus T. Ingham, whom they claimed to be the owner. The defendant claimed that the corn belonged to George H. Ingham, and, as the sheriff of Kankakee county, he had levied upon it as the property of the latter by virtue of an execution against him. On the trial, there was evidence tending to prove that Augustus T. Ingham raised the corn on the Ingham place, and that it was his property, and the sale to the plaintiffs; and there was also evidence tending to prove that George H. Ingham was the owner of the corn.
The third instruction given for the defendant was, that “if they (the jury) believed from the evidence that Augustus T. Ingham agreed with Holliday & Reed to sell them all the corn he raised on his place in 1860, more or less, at a stipulated price, and that the corn in dispute was raised in 1860 on said place, yet that, of itself, did not give Holliday & Reed the property in the corn in question, and the jury should find for the defendant.” We think this instruction was likely to mislead. As between the parties, the title to personal property passes without any delivery, whenever the sale is completed. An agreement to sell an article by weight or measure. where the article is identified and the price agreed upon, may be a complete sale if the parties intended it as such, although the article sold is not weighed or measured. Riddle v. Varnum, 20 Pick., 280.
The objection to the instruction is that it assumes that, under the evidence, an agreement to sell was not and could not be a complete sale. The evidence tends to establish that the corn in controversy had at that time been harvested, and that in pursuance of the agreement it was afterwards set apart for the plaintiffs. We think it should have been submitted to the jury, to determine whether the parties had, by the agreement and the acts done under it, completed the contract between them. O'Keefe v. Kellogg, 15 Ill., 347; Wade v. Moffat, 21 Id., 110. If the agreement and the acts done under it were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arasmith v. Temple
...v. Isbell, 83 Ill. 440; Martin v. Johnson, 89 Ill. 537; Parker v. Fisher, 39 Ill. 164; Miller v. Balthesser, 78 Ill. 302; Holiday v. Burgess, 34 Ill. 193. Where the person doing the injury is a contractor and not a servant, he alone is liable: DeForest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 368; Linton v. Smit......
-
Pettingill v. Drake
...for appellants; that where a plaintiff has evidence tending to prove his case it is error to exclude it from the jury, cited Holliday v. Burgess, 34 Ill. 193; Merricks v. Davis, 65 Ill. 319; Craig v. Peake, 22 Ill. 185; Kohl v. Lindley, 39 Ill. 195; Crowley v. Crowley, 80 Ill. 469.Mr. W. C.......
- Seckel v. Scott
-
German-American Insurance Company v. Shepherd
... ... upon, may be a complete sale if the parties intended it as ... such, although the article sold is not weighed or measured ... Holliday v. Burgess (1864), 34 Ill. 193 ... The ... Supreme Court of Michigan in People v ... Sheehan (1898), 118 Mich. 539, 541, 77 ... ...