Milburn Manuf'G Co. v. Peak

Decision Date10 February 1896
Citation34 S.W. 102
PartiesMILBURN MANUF'G CO. v. PEAK.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action between the Milburn Manufacturing Company and Mrs. Florence Peak. From the judgment the Milburn Manufacturing Company brings error. Case certified from the court of civil appeals.

R. Y. Prigmore and Nugent & Essex, for appellant. Ross & Terrell, for appellee.

DENMAN, J.

The court of civil appeals have certified to us the question: "Whether the contract hereinafter set out had the effect of merely making Hood & Co. the factors of appellant, or whether they thereby became the vendees of appellant; that is to say, whether the contract should be construed on its face as one of consignment merely, or one of sale."

The contract referred to in the above certificate is, in substance, as follows: "This agreement between Milburn Manufacturing Company, party of first part, and Hood & Co., party of second part, witnesseth: (1) That first party agrees to manufacture and ship to second party the following described vehicles, to be sold and accounted for to first party in cash or purchaser's note, as herein described, at the prices herein stated [here follows detailed description of vehicles and prices]. All notes to be on blanks furnished by first party, second party to see that the blanks therein retaining a mortgage on articles sold are properly filled out, and that a mortgage is thereby created, and second `party shall have no authority to take notes not in accordance with this provision.' (2) That second party agrees to receive, store, pay freight, and keep under cover and in good condition, and fully insure, at their own expense, in the name and for the benefit of first party, all vehicles sent, until sold by second party, or ordered away by first party, as herein provided; to pay all taxes on all vehicles; to make all reasonable efforts to sell same; to settle for all vehicles sold; to make all sales, and take all evidence of indebtedness therefor, for and in the name of first party; to remit the cash and notes received for said vehicles to first party. All notes so transferred to be indorsed and guarantied by second party, who agrees to take up and pay cash for all of such notes as should not be paid in 60 days after maturity. Second party to make no charge against first party for selling, storing, or handling the vehicles. Their sole commission and compensation for doing such business to be the margin or difference between the prices herein stated and the prices at which said vehicles shall be sold, to be ascertained and received by first party. Second party agrees to sell all the vehicles under this contract within 12 months, and, in case of failure or neglect to do so, `to settle for those remaining unsold in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Charles M. Stieff, Inc., v. City of San Antonio
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1938
    ...F. 1, certiorari denied 212 U.S. 577, 29 S.Ct. 686, 53 L.Ed. 658; In re Columbus Buggy Co., 8 Cir., 143 F. 859; Milburn Manufacturing Co. v. Peak, 89 Tex. 209, 34 S.W. 102. Thus, there may be a consignment for the purpose of sale to a stranger, but not a sale to the receiver, without in the......
  • City of San Antonio v. Chas. M. Stieff, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1935
    ...1, certiorari denied 212 U. S. 577, 29 S. Ct. 686, 53 L. Ed. 658; In re Columbus Buggy Co. (C. C. A.) 143 F. 859; Milburn Manufacturing Co. v. Peak, 89 Tex. 209, 34 S. W. 102. Thus, there may be a consignment for the purpose of sale to a stranger, but not a sale to the receiver, without in ......
  • Mathis Equipment Co. v. Rosson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1964
    ...Crews v. Harlan, 99 Tex. 93, 87 S.W. 656, 658 (1905); Harling v. Creech, 88 Tex. 300, 31 S.W. 357 (1895); Milburns Manuf'g Co. v. Peak, 89 Tex. 209, 34 S.W. 102, 103 (1896). As stated in the case last cited: 'In case of sale, the property in the goods passes to the vendee, and, though the c......
  • Arbuckle v. Kirkpatrick
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1897
    ... ... 158, 18 S.E. 482; Bank v. Goodyear, 90 Ga ... 711, 16 S.E. 962; Manufacturing Co. v. Peak (Tex ... Sup.) 34 S.W. 102; Plow Co. v. Rodgers, 53 Kan ... 743, 37 P. 111. We examine these ... Co. v. Peak (Tex. Sup.; 1896) 34 S.W. 102. The contract ... provided that the Milburn Company appointed Hood & Co. its ... agent to sell vehicles. Hood & Co. were to make all ... ...
  • 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