Thomas v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 26 January 1895 |
| Citation | 32 A. 876,87 Me. 203 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. PARSONS et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from supreme Judicial court, Piscataquis county.
This was an action by William S. Thomas against William H. Parsons and Ireson Briggs and another, trustees, upon a promissory note given by the defendant William H. Parsons to the plaintiff. Ireson Briggs and John E. French were summoned as trustees. The trustees disclosed that they were indebted to the said William H. Parsons for certain Perry spring-tooth harrows sold by said Parsons to said trustees. They further disclosed that the firm of G. B. Olin & Co. had notified them that they claimed the proceeds of said sale, in the hands of said trustees.
The principal defendant was defaulted, and the question at issue was between the plaintiff, as attaching creditor of the funds in the hands of the trustees, and G. B. Olin & Co., as claimants. The case was submitted to the presiding justice, who found, as a matter of fact, that the harrows sold by William H. Parsons to the trustees were the harrows named in the contract between G. B. Olin & Co. and said Parsons.
The plaintiff contended that by the sale from Parsons to the trustees the said Olin & Co. lost all claim to the harrows, or the proceeds thereof, by the terms of said contract, But the presiding justice ruled that said Olin & Co. had a right to the proceeds of the sale of said harrows, under their said contract, in the hands of the trustees.
The plaintiff also claimed that the contract between Olin & Co. and Parsons, as against him, as an attaching creditor, should have been recorded. But the presiding justice ruled that the contract, without being recorded, was a good contract against an attaching creditor, and that, without such a record, G. B. Olin & Co. were legally entitled to the proceeds from the sale from Parsons to the trustees.
The plaintiff thereupon took exceptions. Overruled.
J. B. Peaks, for plaintiff.
J. & J. W. Crosby, for claimants.
EMERY, J. G. B. Olin & Co., of Canandaigua, N. Y., admittedly once owned certain harrows, called "Perry Spring-Tooth Harrows." They intrusted these harrows to William H. Parsons, of Foxcroft, Me., under a written contract, in which it was stipulated that Parsons was to sell these and other harrows, within a certain territory in Piscataquis county, as the agent of Olin & Co., and that the title to the harrows was to remain in Olin & Co. until it passed to purchasers from Parsons, and that the proceeds of harrows sold, whether in cash, notes, or accounts, should be the property of Olin & Co. Parsons sold these barrows to Briggs & French, partially, at least, upon credit.
The title of Briggs &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cadwallader v. Clifton R. Shaw, Inc.
...act. Littlefield v. Gay, 96 Me. 422, 52 A. 925. The record provided by R. S. c. 114, § 8, has no application to this case. Thomas v. Parsons, 87 Me. 203, 32 A. 876; Richardson Manufacturing Co. v. Brooks, 95 Me. 146, 49 A. The place of record of mortgages of personal property, and their val......
-
Am. Thread Co. v. Milo Waterco
...intend it to pass. Whatever the language or conduct of the parties, the question remains: Did they intend the title to pass? Thomas v. Parsons, 87 Me. 203, 32 A. 876. Passing of title is always a question of intention between parties. Russell v. Clark, 112 Me. 166, 91 A. 602. It is largely ......
-
In re Batchelder, BK-63-1323.
...the title should remain in Blotner until paid for. Compare: Richardson Mfg. Co. v. Brooks, 95 Me. 146, 49 A. 672 (1901); Thomas v. Parsons, 87 Me. 203, 32 A. 876 (1895). He accordingly ruled that the title retention provision of the oral agreement was invalid under the provisions of the Mai......
- Watson v. Perrigo