Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. Stidger
| Decision Date | 12 January 1903 |
| Citation | 18 Colo.App. 261,71 P. 400 |
| Parties | SMITH PREMIER TYPEWRITER CO. v. STIDGER. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.
Action by the Smith Premier Typewriter Company against George Stidger. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
W.W Dale, for appellant.
C.H Pierce and Geo. S. Redd, for appellee.
Replevin to recover typewriter and cabinet. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff appeals. Evidence for plaintiff was that one Weaver obtained of it these articles, representing that he was purchasing as the agent of one McLaughlin; instructed them charged to McLaughlin, and stated that McLaughlin, in due time, would send a check in payment for them. Believing and induced by the representations that it was extending the credit to McLaughlin, and selling to him, the typewriter and cabinet were delivered to Weaver as the agent of McLaughlin. About one month thereafter, plaintiff discovering the fraud practiced, demanded their immediate return. Weaver stated he was doing some work, and would like to use the machine a few days, and that, if allowed to retain it for such time, he would arrange the matter satisfactorily with plaintiff. Plaintiff replied that the matter could be settled only one way, and that was by a return of the property; that, unless this was made at once, replevin would be instituted. The next day plaintiff's agent having in charge this matter was called out of the city, returning in about five days. In the interval Weaver had sold to appellee who, for the purpose of this opinion, we assume,--without deciding,--was an innocent purchaser. Plaintiff demanded possession of appellee, and, upon refusal, brought this action.
If by the above transaction the property in the typewriter and cabinet passed to Weaver, then the judgment below should be affirmed; otherwise not. Plaintiff did not sell to Weaver. It agreed to sell to McLaughlin, but McLaughlin never bought of it. Plaintiff was induced to part with possession by reason of Weaver's false representations that McLaughlin was purchasing through him (Weaver). The agreement thus reached was void, not merely voidable. The property in the typewriter and cabinet never passed to Weaver, who, having no title could pass none. Therefore the title of plaintiff was not affected by the sale of Weaver to appellee. Upon this showing, plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petty v. Borg
... ... 864, 16 Am. St. Rep. 843; Dean v ... Yates, 22 Ohio St. 388; Smith Premier Typewriter ... Co. v. Stidger, 18 Colo. App. 261, 71 P. 400; ... ...
-
Carstensen & Anson Co. v. Wright
... ... carry with it the right of the holder to dispose of it. ( ... Smith-Premier Typewriter Co. v. Stidger, 18 Colo ... App. 261, 71 P. 400; ... ...
-
Panhandle Pipe & Supply Co. v. S. W. Pressey & Son
...P.2d 259; Silberfeld v. Solomon, 70 Colo. 413, 202 P. 113. One without title to property can convey no title. Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. Stidger, 18 Colo. App. 261, 71 P. 400; First State Bank of Brandon v. Kohl, 79 Colo. 620, 624, 247 P. 'Subject to the provisions of this act, where g......
-
Windle v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
...is not buying and the person who obtains possession and afterwards claims title is not himself the purchaser. Smith Typewriter Co. v. Stidger, 18 Colo. App. 261, 71 Pac. 400; Rodliff v. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1, 4 N. E. 805, 55 Am. Rep. 439. In Loeffel v. Pohlman, 47 Mo. App. 574, the court h......