Hight v. Harris
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. The sale and delivery to appellant were sufficient to vest the title in him as against a subsequent purchaser. 8 Ark. 213; 19 id. 567; 1 Benj. Sales, p. 12, sec. 6. Retention of possession by vendor is not conclusive proof of fraud. 54 Ark. 307. Where there is a contract for future delivery or at a given place, the title does not pass until such delivery.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. The sale and delivery to appellant were sufficient to vest the title in him as against a subsequent purchaser. 8 Ark. 213; 19 id. 567; 1 Benj. Sales, p. 12, sec. 6. Retention of possession by vendor is not conclusive proof of fraud. 54 Ark. 307. Where there is a contract for future delivery or at a given place, the title does not pass until such delivery. Benj. on Sales, sec. 325; 113 Mass. 391-4; 101 111. 138. In this case there was no delivery, and hence no title passed as against subsequent purchasers without notice. 25 Ark. 553; 31 id. 136 ; 47 id.…
1Opinion of the Court
Hughes, L
On the 29th day of September, 1890, one Largent went to the residence of the appellee, and proposed to sell him a mule colt. They agreed upon the price, and that the mule should be paid for on delivery. On the next day, Largent went to the town of Fayetteville, riding a mare which the mule followed. He offered the mule for sale to the appellant, who paid him the price they agreed upon, and it was agreed that Largent should deliver the mule to appellant on the 15th of the following month at Fayetteville. Largent left appellant’s house, riding the mare, the mule colt following. Late in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- White v. McCrackenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Leonard v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Hodges v. NallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Brown v. Simsboro Cash StoreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Securities Investment Co. of St. Louis v. WilliamsDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1960