Lincoln v. Quynn

• Decision Date: 06 January 1888
• Citation: Lincoln v. Quynn, 68 Md. 299, 11 A. 848 (Md. 1888)
• Parties: LINCOLN v. QUYNN ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

11 A. 848

68 Md. 299

LINCOLN v. QUYNN ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 6, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Frederick county.

The complainant, William R. Lincoln, filed his petition against the respondents, John T. Quynn, John D. Addison, David C Winebrener, and others, asserting title to certain goods previously sold and delivered by him to one Hoover, and which were now in the hand of receivers, with all the other property of Hoover. The respondents claimed the goods by virtue of certain mortgages executed to them by Hoover for value, and without any notice of the manner in which he acquired possession. The trial court found for the respondents, and William R. Lincoln appeals.

D S. Briscoe and Ch. W. Ross, for appellants.

Wm. P. Maulsby, Jr., C. O. Keedy, and I. C Motter, for appellees.

BRYAN J.

The question in this case involves the validity of a title to goods and chattels derived from the vendee in a conditional sale. In Hall v. Hinks, 21 Md. 406, it was decided that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of the condition upon which his vendor has acquired the possession, will be protected against the claim of the original vendor, in the same manner where the sale and delivery are conditional as where the possession has been obtained by fraud. Twenty years have passed since this decision was made, and in the course of that time it has been repeatedly approved by this court. It is of great importance that the administration of justice should be conducted according to fixed and certain rules. Vacillation and uncertainty in the judgments of the courts produce a feeling of insecurity as to rights and property, and surely tend to encourage disorder, discord, and confusion in social and domestic life. The law on the subject has been otherwise settled in many of the states of the Union. In Harkness v. Russell, 118 U.S. 663, 7 S.Ct. 51, a very learned and elaborate examination of the question was made by the supreme court of the United States, and the positions taken in the opinion were maintained with great force and clearness. The laws of the several states have probably had their origin in the necessities and interests of the people concerned, and doubtless have been adapted to their condition and circumstances under the guidance of a wise public policy. We read with pleasure and profit the able disquisitions delivered by other courts, but we are not unmindful that it is our duty to declare our own law as it belongs to our own people. Having found this question settled by all the authority which can be bestowed by repeated decisions and long acquiescence, we are unwilling to disturb it.

The contract of sale in this case contained an express stipulation that the title to the goods should not vest in the vendee until the price should be paid in full, and installments were to be paid monthly. They were sold in the city of Baltimore by Lincoln, the appellant, to Hoover, and were carried by him to Frederick, and used in an hotel which he was keeping in that place. More than a year afterwards the purchaser mortgaged these goods to Quynn, Addison, and Winebrener, to secure the payment of two...