Rumpf v. Barto
| Decision Date | 26 December 1894 |
| Citation | 38 P. 1129,10 Wash. 382 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | RUMPF ET AL. v. BARTO ET AL. |
Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.
Action by Simon Rumpf and another against E. Barto and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Blaine & De Vries, for appellants.
Fishback Sapp & Ferry, for respondents.
Replevin of diamond jewelry of the alleged value of $352.50. Verdict for plaintiffs, assessing the value at $275. Respondents delivered the jewelry in question to one Reichart, with the following memorandum: Appellants claim that this paper shows a conditional sale, subject to record under Act 1893, p. 253; but upon its face we should denominate it only a memorandum of bailment for inspection until demand, as though the goods had been intrusted to a possible purchaser for examination the matter of sale at the price named, or return, being at his option. Under the evidence the goods were delivered to Reichart for the purpose of showing them to a third person to whom, he represented, he might be able to make a sale of them. Reichart had no customer, but he made an arrangement with one Mayberry, by which the latter was to sell or pawn the goods for not less than $400, which sum was to be paid Reichart, and they were to divide the proceeds above that sum. This would have enabled Reichart to pay the price set by respondents, $352.50, and no one would have been the wiser. But Mayberry pawned them to appellants for $250, and ran away with the whole sum, he knowing that the goods did not belong to Reichart. Appellants claimed to have bought the goods from Mayberry, he at the time being the apparent owner, and so representing himself. They were licensed pawnbrokers, and, in order to avoid what they feared might be a legal necessity to foreclose on their pledges, they adopted a plan of taking from each pledgor a bill of sale, and gave in return an agreement to resell within a designated time for a sum including the amount loaned and interest. As between themselves and Mayberry, appellants might have been able to maintain the letter of their contract; but respondents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eatonville State Bank v. Marshall, 23628.
...an innocent purchaser. It would nullify the doctrine of caveat emptor. This case is similar in facts and principle to Rumpf v. Barto, 10 Wash. 382, 38 P. 1129, 1130, which involved the replevin of jewelry that had delivered under an agreement that no sale would take place until the owner ap......
-
Wesco Supply Co. v. Incorporated Town of Allerton
...See, also, Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312 (14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093); Pike Electric Co. v. Richardson, 42 Mo.App. 272; Rumpf v. Barto, 10 Wash. 382 (38 P. 1129); v. Klabunde, 50 Wis. 235 (6 N.W. 888); Mowbray v. Cady, 40 Iowa 604. The case is not one of sale or return, but really one of con......
-
Wesco Supply Co. v. Inc. Town of Allerton
...See, also, Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 14 Sup. Ct. 99, 37 L. Ed. 1093;Pike Electric Co. v. Richardson, 42 Mo. App. 272;Rumpf v. Barto, 10 Wash. 382, 38 Pac. 1129;Kahn v. Klabunde, 50 Wis. 235, 6 N. W. 888;Mowbray v. Cady, 40 Iowa, 604. The case is not one of sale or return, but really on......
-
Conway v. Flaugh
...upon or title to the $1,200 note as against her, and have no legal excuse for refusing to return it to her. 31 Cyc. 795; Rumpf v. Barto, 10 Wash. 382, 38 Pac. 1129; 35 Cyc. 362; Wilson v. Crocket, 43 Mo. 216, 217, 218, 97 Am. Dec. 389; Walsh Tie, etc., Co. v. Chester, etc., R. Co., 184 Mo. ......