Schindler v. Westover
Decision Date | 30 December 1884 |
Docket Number | 11,600 |
Parties | Schindler et al. v. Westover et al |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the St. Joseph Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A Anderson, for appellants.
L Hubbard and J. Dixon, for appellees.
After this cause was at issue it was tried by the court, and, at the request of the parties, the court made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusions of law thereon, in substance, as follows:
in evidence of the contract theretofore made. Sixteen bushels of the 516 were sold to George Kuhn by plaintiffs, and paid for by George Kuhn. The remaining 500 bushels mentioned in the writing were never sold by plaintiffs, nor did they receive any payment therefor.
(Signed) "Daniel Noyes."
"January 16th, 1884."
Over the appellants' exceptions to the conclusion of law the court rendered judgment in accordance therewith for the appellees, the plaintiffs below.
In this court the only error assigned by the appellants is that upon the facts specially found the trial court erred in its conclusion of law.
As the case is presented here the appellants admit that the facts have been fully and correctly found by the circuit court, and therefore the only question we are required to consider and decide may be thus stated: Upon the facts specially found, did the court err in its conclusion of law? This is settled by many decisions of this court. Cruzan v. Smith, 41 Ind. 288; Robinson v. Snyder, 74 Ind. 110; Braden v. Graves, 85 Ind. 92; Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480; Fairbanks v. Meyers, 98 Ind. 92.
Upon the facts specially found the appellees claim, and the court so decided, that the agreement or contract, under which they delivered and deposited their wheat at and in the mill of George Kuhn, was one of bailment, pure and simple. If this view of the force and legal effect of such agreement or contract be the correct one, it would seem that the court did not err in its conclusion of law, and that the judgment ought to be affirmed.
But, on the other hand, the appellants insist that such agreement or contract is not one of bailment, but is a mutuum or exchange or sale of the wheat, under which the title thereto passed at once to the depositary, George Kuhn, and he became the appellees' debtor for the value of the wheat. If this view of the case be correct, of course the court erred in its conclusion of law, and the judgment should be reversed.
The question is a close one, and much can be said, indeed, much has been said by the learned counsel of both the appellees and the appellants in their able and exhaustive briefs of this cause, in support of their respective positions. The views of both parties, antagonistic and irreconcilable as they are, are not unsupported by authority. A careful consideration of the facts found by the court in the case in hand has led us to the conclusion, though with some degree of hesitancy, that the contract or agreement, under which the appellees deposited their wheat in the mill of George Kuhn was a contract of bailment. Upon the facts specially found there was not, and could not have been, a mutuum or exchange, or sale of the wheat; for the court found that the wheat was put in store with George Kuhn in his flouring-mill, about the 1st day of November, 1882, under the following verbal agreement, then made: "It was agreed that the wheat should be stored to July 1st, 1883; that the plaintiffs might sell the wheat when they pleased before that date, or that wheat would be returned if called for." The court also found that, on the 21st day of February, 1883, the contract or agreement theretofore made was reduced to writing, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Minneapolis Iron Store Co. v. Branum
...like grain did not affect the title to the property under the storage ticket law. Rice v. Nixon, 97 Ind. 97, 49 Am. Rep. 430; Schindler v. Westover, 99 Ind. 395; v. Graham, 53 Iowa 181, 4 N.W. 1090; Nelson v. Brown, 53 Iowa 555, 5 N.W. 719; Ledyard v. Hibbard, 48 Mich. 421, 42 Am. Rep. 474,......
-
McGrew v. Thayer
...of sale. Woodward v. Seamans, 125 Ind. 330, 25 N. E. 444;Rice v. Nixon, 97 Ind. 97;Bottenberg v. Nixon, 97 Ind. 106;Schindler v. Westover, 99 Ind. 395;Lyon v. Lenor, 106 Ind. 567, 7 N. E. 311;Preston v. Witherspoon, 109 Ind. 457, 9 N. E. 585;Morningstar v. Cunningham, 110 Ind. 328, 11 N. E.......
-
McGrew v. Thayer
...Woodward v. Semans, 125 Ind. 330, 25 N.E. 444; Rice v. Nixon, 97 Ind. 97, 49 Am. Rep. 430; Bottenberg v. Nixon, 97 Ind. 106; Schindler v. Westover, 99 Ind. 395; Lyon v. Lenon, 106 Ind. 567, 7 N.E. Preston v. Witherspoon, 109 Ind. 457, 9 N.E. 585; Morningstar v. Cunningham, 110 Ind. 328, 11 ......
-
McClelland v. Scroggin
...parties with respect to the chattels was that of bailor and bailee. (Nelson v. Brown, 53 Iowa 555; Sexton v. Graham, Id., 181; Schindler v. Westover, 99 Ind. 395; Foreman Drake, 98 N. C., 311; Dunlap v. Gleason, 16 Mich. 158; Barker v. Roberts, 8 Greenl. [Me.], 101; Fawcett v. Osborn, 32 Il......