Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Dearman
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lamar county. Hon. William H. Cook, Judge. The Pufffer Manufacturing Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Dearman, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor, plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lamar county. Hon. William H. Cook, Judge. The Pufffer Manufacturing Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Dearman, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor, plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The suit was upon a number of promissory notes given by the defendant to plaintiff, according to defendants’ claim, as installments of hire for a soda fountain; but, according to plaintiff’s claim they were given as installments of purchase money for the fountain. One of the notes (they were all alike except as to times of…
1Opinion of the Court
Whiteield, O.
The decision of this ease pivots upon the single legal inquiry whether the instrument in question evidences a conditional sale with a reservation of title as mere security for the debt, or a lease with all the incidents of a lease. There are several cases in our reports construing instruments, written in different terms, however, from the instrument here involved, as conditional sales, operating as mere security for the purchase price. See Ross-Mehan Co. v. Pascagoula Ice Co., 72 Miss. 615, 18 South. 364, and the authorities therein cited. But the instrument here is very…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ross-Meehan Brake Shoe Foundry Co. v. Pascagoula Ice Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- Nobles v. McCartyMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Robertson v. Puffer Mfg. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Wood v. MorathMississippi Supreme Court · 1921