Holt v. Knowlton

Decision Date30 May 1894
Citation86 Me. 456,29 A. 1113
PartiesHOLT et al. v. KNOWLTON et al. (two cases).
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Report from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.

Actions by Samuel L. Holt and another against Wayland Knowlton and another, also Wayland Knowlton. Judgment for defendants in the first suit, and for plaintiffs in the second.

The first action was upon two promissory notes given by the defendants, November 10, 1891, on which day the plaintiffs bargained and delivered to the defendants a boiler, engine, belting and other fixtures, at an agreed price of $1,130, and took their three notes therefor, payable in four, eight, and twelve months.

On the same day the plaintiffs received from the defendants the following agreement: "Boston, Mass., Nov. 10th, 1891. Knowlton & Doe borrowed and received of S. L. Holt & Bart: One 50 H. P. Nagle portable boiler, No. 7,118, with stack and fixture complete, and No. 6 Messenger injector attached to same; one 12"x16" detached center-crank engine, No. 6, 198, with pump, heater, governor, and fixtures complete; 92 ft of 14" double leather belt—which we agree to safely keep, and carefully use, and not remove from the town of Montville, county of Waldo, state of Maine; also, to keep insured in the sum of one thousand dollars, for the benefit of said S. L. Holt & Bart; also, to pay all taxes upon the same, and, at the expiration of twelve months from the above date, return the same to S. L. Holt & Bart, at Boston, together with any additions, improvements, or attachments which may have been made, free of all charges and unincumbered, and in as good condition as when taken, ordinary wear excepted; it being expressly understood that the title to said boiler, engine, etc., shall not pass out of said S. L. Holt & Bart until the full sum hereinafter mentioned shall be paid as herein specified; that the same shall not become a fixture by being placed in any mill or other building, or by being annexed in any manner to the realty; and that the said S. L. Holt & Bart may at any time enter upon the premises upon which said property is located (forcibly, if necessary), and take possession of the same, upon a violation of any one of the agreements herein contained; and that any money already paid thereon shall be considered as having been paid for the use of said property: provided, always, and it is expressly understood, that if said Knowlton & Doe shall pay to the said S. L. Holt & Bart the sum of eleven hundred and thirty dollars, as follows, to wit: Cash in advance, $———; cash on delivery of machinery, $———; note due Mch. 10-13, 1892, for $376.66, with interest at six per cent; note July 10-13, 1892, for $376.66, with interest at six per cent; note due Nov. 10-13, 1892, for $376.68, with interest at six per cent.—with freight and charges from Boston, together with any sum or sums which the said S. L. Holt & Bart may have paid for insurance or taxes upon the said property by reason of the neglect or failure of the said Knowlton & Doe to keep the same insured, or to pay the taxes thereon as above provided, or in case the said S. L. Holt & Bart are obliged to take possession and remove the same, they may collect the expenses for so doing, together with cost of any repairs which said S. L. Holt & Bart may have made on said machinery, of the said Knowlton & Doe; but if all the covenants herein contained are kept by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Cable Co. v. McElhoe
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 6 Mayo 1915
    ...Weinstein v. Freyer, 12 L. R. A. 700, note; Warnken v. Langdon Co., 8 N. D. 243, 77 N. W. 1000;Drew v. Smith, 59 Me. 393;Holt v. Knowlton, 86 Me. 456, 29 Atl. 1113;Harper v. People, 2 Colo. App. 177, 29 Pac. 1040;Baldwin v. Hill, 4 Kan. App. 168, 46 Pac. 329;Dorntee, etc., Co. v. Gunnison, ......
  • The Cable Company v. McElhoe
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 6 Mayo 1915
    ... ... 700, note; Warnken & Co. v. Langdon Merc. Co. (1898), 8 N.D. 243; ... Drew v. Smith (1871), 59 Me. 393; ... Holt v. Knowlton (1894), 86 Me. 456, 29 A ... 1113; Harper v. People (1892), 2 Colo.App ... 177, 29 P. 1040; Baldwin v. Hill (1897), 4 ... ...
  • Summers v. Carbondale Machine Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1915
    ...on Sales, §§ 648, 650; 35 Cyc. 93, 94; 80 Ark. 403; 64 Ark. 29; Tiedeman on Sales, 109; 46 A. 874; 93 Ala. 257; 161 S.W. 286; 57 N.J. 490; 86 Me. 456; Ga. 489; 7 A. 418; 93 U.S. 664. 2. Under the laws of this State, conditional sales, such as is evidenced by the contract in this case, are v......
  • Hughes v. Winkleman
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 1912
    ... ... property is situate, although the mortgage itself is executed ... and the parties reside in another State. Dawson v ... Hayden, 67 Ill. 52; Holt v. Knowlton, 86 Me ... 456; Griffin v. Griffin, 18 N.J.Eq. 104; Dow v ... Railroad, 20 F. 260; Beach on Modern Law of Contracts, ... sec. 599, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT