Lynch v. Mackey
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; R. H. Dudley, Judge; Tbe fact that a sample of the cotton was exhibited to appellee from which he determined the grade and staple thereof, does not make this a sale by sample. In order to get possession of the cotton, he must first obtain the warehouse receipts, which in effect are the cotton. Under C. & M. Digest, § 6893, appellee could not be an innocent purchaser against the lien of the landlord.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; R. H. Dudley, Judge; Tbe fact that a sample of the cotton was exhibited to appellee from which he determined the grade and staple thereof, does not make this a sale by sample. In order to get possession of the cotton, he must first obtain the warehouse receipts, which in effect are the cotton. Under C. & M. Digest, § 6893, appellee could not be an innocent purchaser against the lien of the landlord. See also 69 Ark. 551; 103 Ark. 91. The trial court erred in its finding of fact and declaration of the law. A purchaser of cotton…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
In the year 1920 one Catchings rented a tract of land from B. A. Lynch. He agreed to pay Lynch the sum of $2,000 as rent for the land, which was not paid. Five bales of cotton grown upon the land were stored by Catchings in the Blytheville 'Compress Company, and that company issued to Catchings a receipt for each bale of the cotton, which receipt showed the weight, marks, and number of the respective bales. The receipts, among other things, specified, “This bale of cotton to be delivered to bearer only upon return of this receipt and payment of all charges.” Across the face of each receipt…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jacobson v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Noe v. LaytonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walker v. RoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Grauman v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950