Cocanaugher v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Cocanaugher v. Hill

5 Ky. Op. 185, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 305

DecidedOctober 21, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ky. Op. 185 (Cocanaugher v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cocanaugher v. Hill, 5 Ky. Op. 185, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 305 (Ky. Ct. App. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

At the time of the alleged sale of the corn it could not ;be severed from the grounds and removed, consequently an actual delivery by a change of its location and removal to another place was impracticable. AV'hether, therefore, the contract for the sale of the corn was complete, or whether it was in fieri only; leaving something ito be done material to complete the bargain were facts, upon which it was the province of the jury to pass. We are not prepared to say that if there was a contract for the sale of the entire field of corn standing, at a stipulated price with a reservation of a designated number of barrels for the use of the vendor, that such a contract would not pass the title to the vendee.

It seems to us, therefore, that the court below erred in giving the peremptory instruction.

AVherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

At the time of the alleged sale of the corn it could not ;be severed from the grounds and removed, consequently an actual delivery by a change of its location and removal to another place was impracticable. AV'hether, therefore, the contract for the sale of the corn was complete, or whether it was in fieri only; leaving something ito be done material to complete the bargain were facts, upon which it was the province of the jury to pass. We are not prepared to say that if there was a contract for the sale of the entire field of corn standing, at a stipulated price with a reservation of a designated number of barrels for the use of the vendor, that such a contract would not pass the title to the vendee.

It seems to us, therefore, that the court below erred in giving the peremptory instruction.

AVherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ky. Op. 185, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cocanaugher-v-hill-kyctapp-1871.