Barrows v. Harrison
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. I. The rule is well settled that the delivery of possession is necessary in a conveyance of personal property as against every one but the vendor. Lampear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110; Lamb et al v. Durant, 12 Mass. 54; Caldwell v. Ball, D & E. 205. In all cases of constructive or symbolical delivery, the circumstances must be such that the vendee can have entire or immediate control of the property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. I. The rule is well settled that the delivery of possession is necessary in a conveyance of personal property as against every one but the vendor. Lampear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110; Lamb et al v. Durant, 12 Mass. 54; Caldwell v. Ball, D & E. 205. In all cases of constructive or symbolical delivery, the circumstances must be such that the vendee can have entire or immediate control of the property. Mantón v. Moore, 7 S. & R. 67; Jewett v. Warren, 12 Maine 800; Truxton v. Moore, 9 Pick. 347; Whittalcer v. Sumner, 20 lb. 399; 2 Yes. Sr. 243; 1 Denio 48; 2 Kent…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwiN, J.
Upon the 11th day of November, 1858, Chubb Brothers, Barrows & Co., a Banking House doing business in the city of Davenport, sold to the plaintiff a *590certain lot of furniture, the property in controversy, which was at the time of such sale in the possession of one John S. Reed, Sr., at Iowa City. As the agent of said firm, Barrows, the plaintiff, when he purchased said property, received from the firm an order upon said Reed to deliver to him the possession of said property. Upon the day of the purchase, the plaintiff presented the order for the goods at the store of said agent, notified John…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cownie v. Local Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944
- Aultman, Miller & Co. v. NilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Frankel Frank & Co. v. August Levi & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1900