Packard Piano Co. v. Williams
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge.. 1. The contract offered in evidence and under which the property in controversy was delivered by plaintiff to Talhnan is a consignment or bailment for .sale, and not a sale, conditional or otherwise, and does not create the relation of vendor and vendee between plaintiff and Talhnan and is not affected by the provisions of the statute relating to conditional sales, and is not required to be filed or recorded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge.. 1. The contract offered in evidence and under which the property in controversy was delivered by plaintiff to Talhnan is a consignment or bailment for .sale, and not a sale, conditional or otherwise, and does not create the relation of vendor and vendee between plaintiff and Talhnan and is not affected by the provisions of the statute relating to conditional sales, and is not required to be filed or recorded. Plow Co. v. Porter, 82 Mo. 23; Peet v. Spencer, 90 Mo. 384; Buggy Co., v. Priebe, 123 Mo. App. 521; Brewing Co. v. Linck,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in selling musical instruments, and one Tallman was in the retail music business in Kirksville. A creditor of Tallman obtained a judgment against him, upon which execution was issued' and placed in the hands of the sheriff,, who levied it upon a piano and organ in *517Tallman’s possession. Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of the instruments, brought this action of replevin against the sheriff. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.
Tallman got the property from plaintiff under the terms of a written contract between them and the sole question…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In re Columbus Buggy Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Lenz v. HarrisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Peet v. SpencerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- M'Cullough v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Weir Plow Co. v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Charles M. Stieff, Inc. v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1938
- Globe Securities Co. v. Gardner Motor Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Turner Lumber & Investment Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Kingman Plow Co. v. JoyceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- City of San Antonio v. Chas. M. Stieff, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.