Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Nitrate Agencies Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 17, 1932No. 4 Div. 638PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBouldin, J.

The substantial question involved is the right of the seller, under the facts of the case, to recover of the buyer the price of merchandise destroyed while in transit without the fault of either.

If not otherwise stipulated, the risk of loss follows the title. Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 59 So. 273; Foley v. Felrath, 98 Ala. 176, 13 So. 485, 39 Am. St. Rep. 39; Magee v. Billingsley, 3 Ala. 679.

In whom, then, was the title at the time of the loss?

During the summer of 1928, Nitrate Agencies Company, the seller, and C. D. Chapman & Co., the buyer, entered into a contract…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Magee v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
  2. Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. BellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. American Compounding Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. Foley v. FelrathSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  5. Robinson & Ledyard v. Pogue & SonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Land Title Co. of Alabama v. State Ex Rel. PorterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
  2. Scherf v. RenfroeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
  3. Land Title Co. of Alabama v. State Ex Rel. PorterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API