Howard v. Haas
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. F. C. Johnston, Judge. (1) The shipment of the tomatoes, according to the terms of sale, by bill of lading attached to the sight draft, payable on presentation, had the effect to retain in plaintiff the title to the tomatoes till the draft had been honored hy defendant. And it can not make any difference that defendant got possession of the tomatoes. Such possession was wrongful as against plaintiff and he can recover them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. F. C. Johnston, Judge. (1) The shipment of the tomatoes, according to the terms of sale, by bill of lading attached to the sight draft, payable on presentation, had the effect to retain in plaintiff the title to the tomatoes till the draft had been honored hy defendant. And it can not make any difference that defendant got possession of the tomatoes. Such possession was wrongful as against plaintiff and he can recover them. Warehouse Co. v. Railroad, 102 S. W. 11; Dickson v. Elevator Co., 44 Mo. App. 498; Skilling v. Bollman, 73 Mo. 665; Commission Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. Plaintiff makes the point that as the terms of the sale were for cash on delivery, and as defendant got possession of the tomatoes without complying with the terms of the contract, the title did not pass, and hence defendant’s possession was wrongful and plaintiff was entitled to recover, regardless of the counterclaim. It is the settled law in this State that when a sale of personal property is made for cash on delivery, the transaction is not complete and the title remains in the seller until the purchase price is paid, though possession is delivered to the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Southwestern Freight & Cotton Press Co. v. StanardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Lavin v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United WorkmenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Workman v. WarderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Street v. Werthan Bag & Burlap Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1918
- Allen Lumber Co. v. HigueraSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Heller v. FergusonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Howard v. HaasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Burgess v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.