American Harrow Co. v. Deyo

Michigan Supreme Court

American Harrow Co. v. Deyo

96 N.W. 1055, 134 Mich. 639, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 697

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 3, 1903

DocketDocket No. 154

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 96 N.W. 1055 (American Harrow Co. v. Deyo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Harrow Co. v. Deyo, 96 N.W. 1055, 134 Mich. 639, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 697 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We think the learned circuit judge erred in his construction of tbe contract. It expressly provides' that the title is to remain in tbe vendor until tbe purchase price shall be paid. This applies to tbe goods unsold by tbe defendant in tbe usual course of trade. There is nothing upon tbe face of tbe contract inconsistent with this provision. -The right to declare indebtedness due before the time of credit expired, and to seize the goods, whenever tbe plaintiff deemed itself insecure, is entirely consistent with tbe retention of tbe title in tbe vendor. Tbe fact that plaintiff, when trouble arose, placed tbe contract on file in tbe office of tbe township clerk, was an unnecessary precaution upon its part, and does not per se change tbe character of the instrument written upon its face. It is a circumstance of some significance in cases where tbe attempt is made to show that an instrument on its face conveying absolute title was in reality intended as a security. Wessels v. Beeman, 87 Mich. 481 (49 N. W. 483). Plaintiff, soon after filing tbe contract, brought this suit. Aside from tbe fact of filing it, the record contains nothing to show any intent to change its character or interpret its meaning.

It follows that tbe judgment must be reversed, and new trial ordered.

Tbe other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We think the learned circuit judge erred in his construction of tbe contract. It expressly provides' that the title is to remain in tbe vendor until tbe purchase price shall be paid. This applies to tbe goods unsold by tbe defendant in tbe usual course of trade. There is nothing upon tbe face of tbe contract inconsistent with this provision. -The right to declare indebtedness due before the time of credit expired, and to seize the goods, whenever tbe plaintiff deemed itself insecure, is entirely consistent with tbe retention of tbe title in tbe vendor. Tbe fact that plaintiff, when trouble arose, placed tbe contract on file in tbe office of tbe township clerk, was an unnecessary precaution upon its part, and does not per se change tbe character of the instrument written upon its face. It is a circumstance of some significance in cases where tbe attempt is made to show that an instrument on its face conveying absolute title was in reality intended as a security. Wessels v. Beeman, 87 Mich. 481 (49 N. W. 483). Plaintiff, soon after filing tbe contract, brought this suit. Aside from tbe fact of filing it, the record contains nothing to show any intent to change its character or interpret its meaning.

It follows that tbe judgment must be reversed, and new trial ordered.

Tbe other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.W. 1055, 134 Mich. 639, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-harrow-co-v-deyo-mich-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack