Berry v. Waterman
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Judge. Replevin by Waterman against Berry for the recovery of a lot of cotton. By consent, the case was tried without a jury. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. R. W. Williamson, Judge. Replevin by Waterman against Berry for the recovery of a lot of cotton. By consent, the case was tried without a jury. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The cotton in controversy was raised by one Cox, during the year 1892. Plaintiff’s testimony tended to show that, about the last of October of that year, before the cotton was gathered, Cox agreed to sell and deliver his entire crop, estimated at about two hundred bales, to Waterman, for eight cents per pound; that the cotton, as gathered, was to be delivered by…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Conceding the validity of the contract of sale between Cox and Waterman, the latter acquired nothing but the right to claim a performance of the contract, and to damages for non-performance. He did not acquire title to the cotton, but a right to get the title by performance, until which he had no ownership of the cotton, and therefore could not maintain an action for it. The statute of frauds has reference only to the “ contract for the sale,” and has no influence whatever on a sale. The two are totally distinct. Waterman had a contract for the sale, but until its terms were complied with by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cole v. BryantMississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- Wachstetter v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court · 1911