Nye v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 04 October 1902 |
| Citation | 53 A. 150,75 Vt. 81 |
| Parties | NYE v. DANIELS. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Caledonia county court; Taft, Judge.
Action by Lucy A. Nye against H. B. Daniels. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Reversed.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, STAFFORD, and HASELTON, JJ.
N. A. Norton, for plaintiff.
Harland B. Howe, for defendant.
The contract under which the plaintiff claims title to the sewing machine in question was made with the Singer Manufacturing Company, by William McLaughlin, manager. It acknowledges the receipt of $17, and says that "there yet remains $43 to be paid" by the plaintiff before she "will complete the payments called for by the lease," which she agrees to pay at the rate of $3 a month until paid. Coupon receipts were to be given for the payments, and "when they amount to $43 the lease will be fully satisfied." The machine is to remain the property of the company, and not to be removed from its then present location without the permission of its St. Johnsbury office, and on failure of the plaintiff to keep her agreement, the company has the right to "repossess the machine," and a discount of $10 was to be made for payment in five months.
We quite agree with the trial court that this is a conditional sale, and not a lease, as it affects to be. The obvious intent and meaning of the contract is that, when it is "fully satisfied" by payment of the $43, the machine shall be and remain the property of the plaintiff, free from the company's interest therein. But as the contract gives the company the right to take possession of the machine on failure of the plaintiff to pay as agreed, the defendant has the same right, as he has bought the company's interest in the machine and the contract, and thus has become subrogated to its rights. Hence the decisive question is, whether the plaintiff had fully paid for the machine in a way to bind the defendant before he took it, as she claims, or whether there was then a balance due, as the defendant claims. But this question was not submitted to the jury, as the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff because the company did not sell the machine according to the statute, and therefore was guilty of a conversion in selling to the defendant, and the defendant guilty in taking possession. But this was error, for by selling to the defendant as it did, the company was not guilty of a conversion, as it did not take possession, nor exercise other dominion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peet
...the act of Congress before referred to, and are not inconsistent with the provisions of that act, they have the force of law. Nye v. Daniels, 75 Vt. 81, 53 Atl. 150. Under the general rule here applicable, that the exclusion of one subject or thing is the inclusion of all other things, when......
-
State v. G. Fred Peet
... ... Since ... these regulations were prescribed by the Secretary of ... Agriculture under authority of the Act of Congress before ... referred to, and are not inconsistent with the provisions of ... that Act, they have the force of law. Nye v ... Daniels, 75 Vt. 81 ... Under ... the general rule here applicable that the exclusion of one ... subject or thing is the inclusion of all other things, when ... the federal regulations excluded from use in interstate ... commerce, as too immature to produce wholesome meat, the ... ...
-
Piper v. Boston & M. R. R.
...Penn. R. Co. v. International Coal Mining Co., 230 U. S. 184, 33 Sup. Ct 893, 57 L. Ed. 1446, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 315; Nye v. Daniels, 75 Vt. 81, 53 Atl 150; Taft v. Taft, 82 Vt. 64, 71 Atl. 831; State v. Peet, SO Vt. 449, 68 Atl. 661, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 677, 130 Am. St. Rep. 998. Provisions ......
-
Vt. Acceptance Corp. v. Wiltshire
...138, 146 A. 248. The vendor, however, may take possession of the property upon condition broken, if the contract so provides. Nye v. Daniels, 75 Vt. 81, 53 A. 150. French v. Osmer, supra, was an action on the case for negligence. The question was whether the vendor of personal property sold......