Morris v. Lynde
| Decision Date | 20 December 1881 |
| Citation | 73 Me. 88 |
| Parties | EDWARD C. MORRIS and another v. GEORGE A. LYNDE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON REPORT.
Replevin of one fire proof safe, with patent inside bolt arrangement size No. 21, Morris and Ireland manufacture, of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars.
Writ dated March 1, 1877.
Plea non cepit, and a brief statement, alleging title at the date of the writ, in one Jeremiah Furbush.
The opinion states the facts.
The following is a copy of the order referred to in the opinion:
" Rockland, October 22, 1873.
Messrs Morris and Ireland, Boston.
Please ship to Lynde Hotel, one fire proof safe, with patent inside bolt arrangement, size No. 21, for which I agree to pay two hundred and sixty-three dollars, payable May 1st, 1874.
Indorsement: " Safe to be finished extra nice, with plain border."
Rice and Hall, for the plaintiffs.
J. E. Hanley, for the defendant.
The evidence shows a conditional sale in the fall of 1873, by the plaintiffs to the defendant, of the safe which was replevied in March, 1877, from the defendant's possession. By the terms of the sale, the safe was to remain the plaintiffs' property, till the price was paid. No part of the payment has ever been made.
The defendant justifies his possession under the title of one Jeremiah Furbush, to whom the safe was mortgaged by the defendant himself, in December, 1875; claiming that the record of the order which he gave to the plaintiffs for the safe, in which was contained the stipulation that the safe was to remain their property till payment, was so defective as to be a nullity, and thereby his mortgage to Furbush gained precedence.
Except so far as some statute might require it, there was no need either of writing or of record, to enable the plaintiffs to retain the title to their own property, till the event occurred which they had made a condition precedent to their parting with title, namely, till the price was paid. The title could pass to the defendant in presenti, or in futuro, only by the consent of the plaintiffs; in accordance with their agreement. The plaintiffs agreed that the title should vest in the defendant, when he paid the price. This he has never done. The safe has always remained the plaintiffs' property, as if they had never parted with the possession, and as against Lynde and all persons claiming under him, unless some statute controls the contract, and changes the relations of the parties. By R. S., c. 111, § 5, the rule is changed in this respect in cases of sales of goods for which a note is given.
" No agreement that personal property bargained and delivered to another, for which a note is given, shall remain the property of the payee till the note is paid, is valid, unless it is made and signed as a part of the note, nor when it is so made and signed, in a note for more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Thread Co. v. Milo Waterco
...the contract had been made in this state, the paper called a lease would be a conditional sale of property; but upon authority of Morris v. Lynde, 73 Me. 88, the title to a chattel which is the subject of conditional sale can pass to the vendee, in prresenti, or in futuro, only by consent o......
-
Mac Motor Sales v. Pate
...and delivered and title is to vest in the purchaser or vendee only upon the performance of a condition precedent. As said in Morris v. Lynde, 73 Me. 88, 89: 'Except so far as some statute might require it, there was no need either of writing or of record, to enable the plaintiffs to retain ......
-
Albers v. The Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis
...not negotiable and no holder could enforce it, after performance or other discharge of its obligations. Laws 1905, p. 243, sec. 1; Morris v. Lynde, 73 Me. 88; State rel. v. Huff, 63 Mo. 288. (4) The law of the land would not require the Albers Company to give up the paper evidence of these ......
-
Boscho, Inc. v. Knowles
...which denies validity, except as between the original parties, unless the agreement is recorded. Tibbetts v. Towle, 12 Me. 341; Morris v. Lynde, 73 Me. 88; Beal v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., Me. 1951, 82 A.2d 412. The law of Massachusetts has not been called to our attention, and we m......