Wells v. Bullock
| Decision Date | 26 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | 34785. |
| Citation | 5 So.2d 686,192 Miss. 347 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WELLS v. BULLOCK. |
Bidwell Adam and English Lindsey, both of Gulfport, for appellant.
H W. Gautier, of Pascagoula, for appellee.
Bullock instituted an action to recover from Wells the alleged balance due on the purchase money of a used motor truck. When Bullock sold and delivered the truck to Wells, he represented to Wells that he had an unencumbered title thereto, and he sold it unconditionally. The transaction was distinctly evidenced by a written bill of sale; there was no retention of title to secure the deferred monthly payments, nor was there any provision whatever for an acceleration of the deferred payments.
Bullock had bought the truck from Cockroft who had reserved title for the security of the balance of the purchase price, which according to Cockroft, was unpaid and past due. A few days after the sale to Wells, the possession of the truck was demanded of Wells by Cockroft, who succeeded in convincing Wells that the demand should be honored; but Wells immediately notified Bullock that Cockroft had taken the property, whereupon Bullock went to Cockroft, paid the balance claimed by him, and the truck was delivered by Cockroft to Bullock.
It was thereupon the duty of Bullock to redeliver it immediately to Wells and to do so unconditionally. But instead, Bullock, in his offer to redeliver, sought to attach thereto the condition that Wells then pay the balance of the purchase money installments, none of which was at that time due. Wells declined the proposed condition and countered by demanding repayment of that part of the purchase price theretofore paid by him to Bullock. Wells testified that when Bullock brought the truck to him, and when, as stated, it should have been redelivered to Wells unconditionally under the terms of the original contract between them, "he said before I got the truck back I would have to pay him the notes". Bullock makes no denial of this, but in his own testimony he admits that he said to Wells, As stated, Wells declined this new or different undertaking, and Bullock drove the truck to his, Bullock's home and thereafter made no effort to deliver it, or have it delivered, to Wells under the terms of the bill of sale; wherefore Bullock was in the same legal attitude as he would have been had he refused delivery at the time of the original sale, and, consequently was in no position thence to demand the balance of the purchase price; from which it follows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruth v. Easterling
...227, 124 So. 331. The plea operated as a denial that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property replevied. Wells v. Bullock, 192 Miss. 347, 5 So.2d 686. There are several cases from this Court, however, wherein we have permitted the use of a defense in replevin under the ancie......
-
Mitchell v. Atlas Roofing Mfg. Co., 42517
...which is enforceable neither in law or in equity. * * *' And compare the language of this court in the case of Wells v. Bullock, 192 Miss. 347, 5 So.2d 686, 687, where this court in speaking of the necessity of a plaintiff establishing a right in himself in order to make out a good cause of......
-
McNeeley v. Blain, 46457
...Mrs. Flora Mae Crook and the parties were returned to the same position as if that action had never been brought. Wells v. Bullock, 192 Miss. 347, 5 So.2d 686 (1942). Mrs. Crook contends, however, that since the trial court announced to the jury that the plaintiff and Mrs. Crook had settled......
-
Williams v. Whitfield, 43016
...the same position as if the suit had not been instituted. Lucedale Commercial Co. v. Strength, 163 Miss. 346, 141 So. 769; Wells v. Bullock, 192 Miss. 347, 5 So.2d 686; Dabney Foundation, Inc. v. Perry, Exec., 223 Miss. 721, 79 So.2d For the reasons stated above the judgment of the lower co......