페이지 이미지

changes of possession, which might fall within the letter of the rule but not within its spirit. It does not mean that the

paid for them. Later R. wished W. was never recorded, and the parties to take back such portion of the thereto continued to live together goods as he had not yet sold and on the ranch as before, without any give him credit accordingly on the change in their relations or in their debt. W. agreed, and gave credit, possession of the chattels being manbut instructed R. to act as its agent ifest to the world. Held, no actual and sell the goods on its account and and continued change of possession. remit proceeds. Held, that this was Kennedy v. Conroy (Cal., 1896), 44 a resale and not merely a rescission Pac. R. 795. Alleged vendee of store of the original sale, and that as there and stock of goods did not take poswas no delivery of possession, the session and left the same manager sale was fraudulent as to attaching and clerks in charge. Vendor's name creditors of R. Whiting Mfg. Co. v. remained on the window-shades and Gephart (1893). 6 Wash. 615, 34 Pac. in the newspaper advertisements, R. 161. A stock of goods was sold to and bills were made out to vendor a clerk of the vendor who had been and paid by manager without objecin the store in the employ of the tion. Sale held fraudulent as made vendor for some months. No inven- without immediate delivery and acttory of stock was taken upon mak- ual change of possession. Howard v. ing the sale. The signs on the store Dwight (1896), 8 S. Dak. 398, 66 N. W. were unchanged, and there was R. 935. D. purchased from A. about nothing to indicate a change of pos- eleven thousand raisin trays in paysession, though, upon making the ment of a debt. The trays were not sale, the vendor said to the vendee, removed from the shed on A.'s farm "the goods are yours," and left the where they were stored, but D. wrote store and did not return. Held, that his name on a large number of them the sale was void, there being no im- and kept a man continuously at A.'s mediate delivery and actual and con- house to look after the trays. Held, tinued change of possession.

Lloyd no sufficient open and continuous v. Williams (1895), 6 Colo. App. 157, change of possession. Byxbee v. 40 Pac. R. 243. H. bought cattle of Dewey (Cal., 1896), 47 Pac. R. 52. W. W. put them in a “stalk field" The only thing done at the time of which he had bought professedly the sale was to put the brother of the for himself

, but really for H. Held, vendee in charge of the store. The no change of possession. Harris v. name of the new proprietor was not Pence (1895), 93 lowa, 481, 61 N. W. placed upon the building nor was R. 927. A stepfather delivered to his the sign of the old removed. Held, stepson, who had been living with no sufficient change of possession. him on his ranch, a lease thereof, Revercomb v. Duker (1898), 74 Mo. reserving two rooms of the house App. 570. thereon for his own use, and at the

Illustrations of sufficient delive same time

gave the stepson, for ery.- On the other hand, in Webster value, a bill of sale of sheep and hogs v. Anderson, 42 Mich. 554, 4 N. W. R. running on the ranch. The lease 289, 36 Am. R. 452, where a farm




change of possession shall continue unbroken indefinitely, or that the goods shall never, for any purpose, come again into hand accepted from his employer 31 Pac. R. 530. Plaintiff's husband twenty hogs in payment for his serv- sold her sixteen mares in satisfaction ices, with the understanding that of a debt. The mares were pastured they should remain on the farm with on the husband's lands prior to the the employer's hogs until they could sale, and branded with his brand. be sold, it was held a sufficient de- At the time of the sale they were livery. “It was all the delivery that brought to the corral, vented with the could well have been made under husband's brand, and then branded the circumstances, without requir- with the plaintiff's brand, and a bill ing Anderson (the buyer) to remove of sale was given. They were then the hogs from the farm where he turned back on the range where they was employed, to some other place were before, and cared for, at season where they would have been less requiring care, by men hired by and in his possession than where they paid by the plaintiff. Held, a suffiwere.” (Contra, Hull v. Sigsworth, cient delivery and change of posses48 Conn. 258, 40 Am. R. 167. See also sion. Asbill v. Standley (Cal., 1892), Thompson v. Wilhite, 81 Ill. 356, both 31 Pac. R. 738. R. & Co. executed a unte.) On a sale of household goods, bill of sale to plaintiffs, creditors of where the seller moved out of the R. & Co., of twelve thousand bushels house in which they were, and de- of charcoal in pits on the lands of R. livered the keys to the buyer, it was & Co. Plaintiffs made no attempt held enough. Barr v. Reitz, 53 Pa. to remove the coal, but caused, a St. 256. Where two brothers lived few days later, small cards to be together, and one bought a carpet placed on the pits, with their name for their home, but did not pay for thereon; they also placed a man in it, and the other then went and paid charge of the pits, who remained in for it and took a bill of sale to him- charge about two weeks, and then self, it was held sufficient change. left, requesting a person on an adEvans v. Scott, 89 Pa. St. 136. joining ranch to look after the coal,

Further illus ons are the fol- and such person made occasional lowing: Plaintiff bought from M. a visits each day to the pits. Held, a mare then pasturing on the land of sufficient change of possession. Tog. W., five miles distant. He went to nini et al. v. Kyle (1882), 17 Nev. 209, take possession of her, but W. was 30 Pac. R. 829. During negotiations not at home. On his way back he for the sale of the stock of goods the met W., and arranged with him to store was closed. After the consumremove the mare a few days later, mation of the sale the store was reand on the day specified he placed opened with the prior owner as salesher on another ranch under an agree- man and manager for the new owner. ment with the manager thereof, who All creditors of the prior owner were received and held her for plaintiff. immediately notified, announcement Held, a sufficient compliance with of the sale was published for two the requirement of immediate deliv. weeks in the local papers, and Bradery. Cameron v. Calberg (Cal, 1892), street's was notified of the sale. New

the possession of the seller. As was said by Chief Justice Redfield, “after a sale of personal chattels has become perfected

letter-heads were immediately pro- elsewhere, sold his cows, fixtures and cured and used, showing the new equipments of i he farm to an emowner as proprietor. Business was ployee, P., whom he had placed in conducted in the name of the new charge of the farm. A few months owner, and she was frequently in the later, P., being unable to pay, resold store, though not engaged in selling the property to B., in presence of two goods. Held, a sufficient change of witnesses, but the property was bailed possession. Pollard v. Farwell (1892), to P. for use for a period of eight 48 Mo. App. 42. ` The sale of seven months. Shortly afterward S. levied horses to plaintiff was actually bona upon the property and sold it as the fide, and there was immediate deliv- property of P. B. gave notice both ery. Soon after the delivery the before and at such sale that the propplaintiff employed a man, formerly erty was his own. Jury found utmost in the employ of vendor, and put good faith on part of both B. and P. this man in charge of the horses; Held, a sufficient delivery and conwith six of them in a team, he and tinued change of possession. Bell v. the said vendor, with a like team, McCloskey (1893), 155 Pa. St. 319, 26 did a large amount of plowing for Atl. R. 547. a third person; for convenience in Plaintiff bought of N. certain corn, working while doing the plowing, standing in two pieces, the corn to one of the horses of plaintiff's team be cribbed or thrown into piles as he was interchanged with one of the might elect. He rode through both horses of the vendor's team. Held, pieces, and paid $25 on

one and that this evidence supported the $60 on the other. Later one piece finding of “an actual and continued was cut and partly shocked. Held, change of possession." Freeman v. there had been sufficient delivery Hensley, Sheriff (Cal, 1892), 30 Pac. and change of possession. State ex R. 792. Buggies in a “knock-down” rel. Wrigit v. Casteel (1892), 51 Mo. condition (parts in boxes and crates) App. 143. T. Co. owned two engines were stored in warehouse. Vendor in the possession of W., who held as took vendee's agent to the ware- bailee. T. Co. sold them to appellant, house, pointed out the goods sold, and both T. Co. and appellant notified locked the warehouse and gave the W. of the sale and instructed him to key to the agent, who thereafter re- hold for appellant. Held, a sufficient tained it. Held, a sufficient delivery delivery and change of possession. and actual and continued change of Nat. Bank of Chambersburg v. Buckpossession, even though goods of third eye I. & B. Works (1892), 46 Ill. App. person were also stored in the ware- 526. Firm engaged in merchandis. house, and such third person had ing sold out its business to a creditor been given a key and had been prom- firm. Latter took possession, removed ised that he should have exclusive the old sign-board, put its own in possession. Morrison v. Oium, Sheriff place, and advertised the change, but (1892), 3 N. Dak. 76, 54 N. W. R. 288. retained one of the members of the The lessee, B., of a dairy farm, living vendor firm to act as salesman. Held,


by such a visible, notorious and continued change of possession that the creditors of the vendor may be presumed to have

a valid sale. Loucheim v. Seyfarth for the expressed consideration of (1893), 49 Ill. App. 561. G. was in. $1,000, under oral agreement that bill debted to his brother, the defendant, of sale should not be given nor posin various sums for wages, loans, etc. session surrendered until H.'s credit Defendant was in possession of G.'s should by his further employment store as clerk and manager. He by W. increase W.'s indebtedness to pressed G. for payment and G. gave him to the sum of $1,000, when the him a bill of sale of the stock of bill should be delivered and possesgoods in the store in payment of sion immediately given. This arthe debt. Defendant immediately rangement was carried out, and upon changed the advertisements, and ad- the debts reaching the amount vertised himself as proprietor, noti- agreed upon, the bill of sale was de fied the landlord of the purchase and livered by W. to H., and H. took im. himself became tenant, and refused mediate possession and put up a to receive goods consigned to G. Held, plain sign on the mill, “ A. Hawn, a sufficient delivery and change of Successor to George Wright.” Held, possession. Martin v. Duncan (1893), that as there was no sale until the 47 Ill. App. 84. The owner of a large condition was complied with, and pasture on which he and another that as upon compliance therewith pastured their horses together, and there was immediate delivery and on which both lived (but in separate continued change of possession, the houses), sold. that other some of his sale was valid as against creditors horses. Such horses remained in the subsequently attaching. Roberts v. pasture as before. Held, a sufficient Hawn (1894), 20 Colo. 77, 36 Pac. R. delivery and change of possession. 886. W. sent C. a bill of sale of propTraders' Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. erty in the possession of M. which Day (1894), 87 Tex. 101, 26 S. W. R. was to be operative upon C.'s paying 1049. At the time of the sale the a note made by W. and M. and paywhisky was stored in a bonded ware. ing the bill of M. for the care of the house, only to be removed upon sur- property up to time of acceptance. render of the certificates and com- After some correspondence, C. acpliance with their conditions. The cepted the offer, paid M.'s bill and certificates were in the hands of either paid or guaranteed the note, pledgees, several hundred miles and immediately took possession. away. Pledgees were immediately Held, that the sale dated not from notified of the sale and that the pur- the delivery of the bill of sale but chaser claimed the certificates sub- from the date of acceptance of the ject to the pledgees' lien. Held, a conditions under which it was to good delivery and change of pos- become operative, and that there session. Freiberg v. Steenbock (1893), was thus immediate delivery and 54 Minn. 509, 56 N. W. R. 175. W. change of possession. Cornwall v. was indebted to H. in the sum of Mix (Idaho, 1893), 34 Pac. R. 893. C. about $800, and made a bill of sale to was a baker, and had been in enH. of a portable sawmill, horses, etc., ploy of R. for nearly a year. Rowed

notice of it, the vendee may lend or let or employ the vendor to sell or perform any other service about the thing with the

him for such labor $369.55, and being tion of its wholesale business to its unable to pay proposed to sell him manager he took actual possession of the stock of goods. An inventory the goods in the warehouse; removed was taken, a schedule made and the other goods, which he had purchased goods transferred by bill of sale. and which had been theretofore in Rooms in which business was carried the retail store, to the warehouse; on and fixtures were leased to C. for opened a retail and wholesale store three months, and keys and posses- in the warehouse, cutting windows sion were delivered, and the next therein; placed the sign “Office" night a sign with name of C. as suc- over the door; and advertised himcessor to R. was placed on the build- self in a newspaper as the successor ing. Held, a sufficient change of pos- to the corporation. Held, that there session. Eversman et al. v. Clements was a sufficient delivery. Crymble (1895), 6 Colo. App. 224, 40 Pac. R. 575. v. Mulvaney (1895), 21 Colo. 203, 40

S. transferred to F. certain personal Pac. R. 499. E. bought a restaurant property upon F.'s undertaking to and paid full consideration therefor. satisfy a certain claim which F. & When the bill of sale was made and Co. had against S. F. & Co. agreed the purchase price paid, the vendor, to this and gave S. a receipted bill, J., went with E. to the restaurant acknowledging payment of the said and gave E. possession, and after noclaim, and charged F. with the tifying the help of the sale went amount upon account. S. ran a bar away, and E. assumed control. J.'s in the W. Hotel. The goods in ques- name was never on the outside of tion were turned over to F., who put the restaurant, and the only sign she them in an unoccupied room in the ever had there was “Jim's Place.” basement of the W. Hotel, locked This sign was allowed to remain. The the room and kept sole control of the bills of fare were not changed at the key. Nobody else had access to the time of the sale. Held, a sufficient room, and F. put on the door a no- change of possession. Burchinell v. tice that the goods within were his Smidle (1895), 5 Colo. App. 417, 39 property. He informed the manager Pac. R. 1097. R. executed to D. a of the W. Hotel what he had done, bill of sale of goods in his store and and the manager consented thereto at the same time conveyed to him and to F.'s occupancy of the room, certain accounts and real estate; D. and agreed so far as was necessary immediately took the keys of the to hold the goods for F. Held, that store, locked the door, made a temthe possession was acquired openly porary arrangement with R. to act and that the sale was good. Conly as his clerk, and opened the store v. Friedman (1895), 6 Colo. App. 160, early the next morning, when W. 40 Pac. R. 348. A corporation carry- levied on the goods. Held, an immeing on a retail and a wholesale busi- diate and sufficient change of posness used a warehouse, on which session under the bill of sale. Drury there was no sign, solely for storing v. Wilson (1896), 38 N. Y. S. 538, 4 its goods. On a sale by the corpora- App. Div. 232. Heavy printing ma

« 이전계속 »