John F. Comstock & Co. v. Affœlter
| Decision Date | 31 August 1872 |
| Parties | JOHN F. COMSTOCK & CO., Appellants, v. JOHN AFFÅ’LTER, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.
Hall & Oliver, for appellants.
The delivery of goods to a carrier, for the purpose of transferring them to the purchaser, is a delivery to the purchaser. (2 Kent's Com. 499.)
L. H. Waters, for respondent.
This suit was for the price of a bill of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant, and the only controversy is in regard to the delivery. The plaintiff's salesman and traveling agent testified that he called upon defendant at Carrollton and sold the goods; that the understanding was that they were to be shipped so that they would be received in less time than by river, and that they were shipped at once by the Merchants' Union Express Company. He also spoke of having sold another bill of goods which was paid for, and which had been shipped by the river. The defendant testified that the agreement was to deliver the goods to him at Carrollton within ten days, and that he never received them or heard from them. This was the substance of all the testimony. There was no evidence of any direction in regard to the manner of shipment, or that said express company was a common carrier, or the usual carrier between St. Louis and Carrollton, or that goods were ever shipped by it to that place, or that any notice was given defendant of the shipment.
The plaintiff asked two instructions, which were refused, one of which was to the effect that if the goods were sold at the prices charged, to be shipped to defendant, and were actually shipped by the company named, he is responsible although they were not received; and the other was the same, only that in the latter notice of the shipment was supposed.
When goods are ordered and no specific instructions are given in regard to the shipment, a delivery, with proper directions, to the usual carrier, for the purchaser, is held to be a constructive delivery to him; and the goods become at once his, subject only to the right of stoppage in transitu. The purchase with general directions to ship, would authorize a shipment in the usual way, and the carrier would become the agent of the purchaser. (2 Kent, 499 and cases cited; 2 Hilliard Sales, 118, 123.) There are authorities to the effect that the purchaser must designate the carrer in order to make him his agent; but when there is a regular carrier, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Canton v. McDaniel
... ... delivery to the purchaser. Comstock v. Affoelter, 50 ... Mo. 411; Graff v. Foster, 67 Mo. 519; Armentrout ... v. Railroad, 1 ... to themselves, and sent the bill of lading therefor to Mr ... John W. Ray, of Canton, Missouri, and indorsed thereon, ... "Deliver to the order of John W. Ray." Mr ... ...
-
B. F. Sturtevant Company v. Ford Manufacturing Company
...f. o. b. Read ville, Massachusetts, was with intent to pass the title to appellant and did so. Valle v. Cerre, 36 Mo. 575; Comstock v. Affoeltter, 50 Mo. 411; Bergman Railroad, 104 Mo. 77; Scharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428; State v. Rosenberger, 212 Mo. 654. (b) Defendant did not plead a return......
-
Southern Iron & Equipment Co. v. Smith
... ... Powell, Judge ... ... Reversed and remanded ... John A ... Eaton, Dudley W. Eaton, Edmund H. McVey and Hyden J. Eaton ... for appellant ... 122; State v. Rosenberger, 212 Mo. 648; State v ... Wingfield, 115 Mo. 428; Comstock v. Affoelter, ... 50 Mo. 411; Gill v. Comm. Co., 84 Mo.App. 460; ... Scharf v. Meyer, 133 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Davis v. Goodnow
...property. The title to the goods had passed to Ayler, and the railroad company was his agent. Rickey v. Zappenfeldt, 64 Mo. 277; Comstock v. Affelter, 50 Mo. 411; Erwin v. Arthur, 61 Mo. 386; Magruder v. Gags, 33 Md. 344; Krudler v. Ellison, 47 N. Y. 36. The tax law does not authorize a sui......