Hallett v. Parrish
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. Make no argument nor cite any authorities upon the point decided by the court. Where the contract is for the sale of unascertained goods-the contract is executory, and no property is thereby transferred. Where the goods which are the subject matter of a contract of sale are part of a specific stock from which they have not been separated, no property passes until separation.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. Make no argument nor cite any authorities upon the point decided by the court. Where the contract is for the sale of unascertained goods-the contract is executory, and no property is thereby transferred. Where the goods which are the subject matter of a contract of sale are part of a specific stock from which they have not been separated, no property passes until separation. (Tiffney on Sales, p. 94; Adams v. Gorham, 6 Cal. 68; Horr v. Baker, 6 Cal. 489; S. C., 8 Cal. 603; S. C., 11 Cal. 393, 70 Am. Dee. 791; McLaughlin v. Piatti, 27 Cal. 452;…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. On the third day of September, 1895, the plaintiffs, being partners under the firm name of Hallett & Morrison, purchased of one C. J. Landon “seven thousand bushels of O. K., No. 1, marketable wheat, to be delivered at top of tramway on or before sixty days; loss or damage by fire to be carried by the party of the first part.-” This sale was evidenced by an instrument in writing signed by C. J. Landon, attested *498with bis seal, witnessed by Fred W. Hallett, one of the plaintiffs, and acknowledged before him as notary. On the 23d of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harkness v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by3 opinions
- Coombs v. CollinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Rapple v. HughesIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- Brown v. HerrickIdaho Supreme Court · 1921