Hamilton v. Rankin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court; R. E. Jeffery, Judge; A sale is presumed to be for cash, unless there was at the time a contract for a different mode of payment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court; R. E. Jeffery, Judge; A sale is presumed to be for cash, unless there was at the time a contract for a different mode of payment. Tiedeman on Sales § § 151-168; 63 Ark. 87; 55 Ark. 45. Crediting the account of Land by Rankin is not a payment such as would constitute Rankin a bona fide purchaser. 76 Ark. 282; 63 Ark. 87. Replevin will lie for goods intermingled with others ■where the kind, quality and price is the same. 70 Ark. 105. Although this action is brought -in the nature of replevin, it is no less an action for conversion, and, the property having…
1Opinion of the CourtKjrby, J.
John W. Hamilton brought an action in replevin in the justice court against Charles A. Rankin for one hundred and one bushels of corn of the value of seventy-five cents per bushel and recovered judgment, from which an appeal was taken to the circuit court and upon the trial there the court directed a verdict against him, and from the judgment thereon he prosecutes this appeal.
It appears from the testimony that Doctor Land phoned Hamilton, asking the price of corn, and upon being told it was seventy-five cents per bushel, directed him to bring him one hundred bushels and deliver it at the barn…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sheeks-Stephens Store Co. v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Ames Iron Works v. Kalamazoo Pulley Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harbert v. Fort Smith Canning Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1931
- Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- S.E. Lux Jr. Mercantile Company v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Eureka Springs Sales Co. v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Eureka Springs Sales Co. v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956