Ochs v. Price
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM KNOX. Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court, March Term, 1871. O. P. Temple, Chancellor. 1. The promise of Price to deliver the goods specified to Joseph, the auctioneer, to be sold for the benefit of complainants, in consideration of their' forbearing to sue, amounted to a sale of the goods.
Read the full summary
FROM KNOX. Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court, March Term, 1871. O. P. Temple, Chancellor. 1. The promise of Price to deliver the goods specified to Joseph, the auctioneer, to be sold for the benefit of complainants, in consideration of their' forbearing to sue, amounted to a sale of the goods. The legal title was vested in Joseph for the benefit of complainants. 2. The circumstances show that Brien & Thaxton were not in fact purchasers, but took the goods by collusion with Price.
1Opinion of the CourtNicholson, C. J.
These three causes were consolidated and heard together, and decree rendered therein at the April Term, 1871, of the Chancery Court at Knoxville, from which all the complainants, and the defendants Brien & Thaxton, appealed to this court.
Defendant ~W. G. Price was indebted to the several complainants in different sums, and about the last of January, 1866, proposed to them, if they would *485abstain from bringing suit, to send to J. Joseph, an auctioneer at Knoxville, a stock of goods he had in Washington county, within twelve or fourteen days, to be sold by Joseph, and the proceeds to be applied…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bush v. Export Storage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · 1904
- Groveland Banking Co. v. City Nat. BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1921