Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. Smith

159 N.E. 855, 26 Ohio App. 321, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 516, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 516
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 13, 1927
Docket180
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.E. 855 (Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. Smith, 159 N.E. 855, 26 Ohio App. 321, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 516, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 516 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

The Columbia Weighing Machine Co. commenced suit against B. B. Smith in the San-dusky Common Pleas to recover the purchase price of a weighing machine.

Smith purchased a machine on May 12, 1925, the agreement stating that the purchaser might return same within 30 days instead of paying the purchase price; and that if the machine were not returned within 30 days, the full purchase price of $150.00 should be paid.

The machine was received May 26, 1925 and was not returned until July 15, 1925; when Smith wrote, claiming that the amount taken in by the machine did not warrant him in keeping it. Judgment was entered upon a verdict in favor of Smith and upon error proceedings, the Court of Appeals held:—

1. By virtue of 8399 GC., rule 3, where goods are delivered with the privilege of returning them, the buyer may revest title to the property in the seller by returning or tendering the goods within the time fixed in the contract.

2. The contract in the instant case provided for the return of the machine in a certain way and the purchaser could avoid liability for the purchase price under the contract only by complying with the terms thereof; and making the return shipment within 30 days by freight.

3. Smith did not take such action and did not return or tender within the stipulated time; and the pleadings show on their face that he is liable to the company for the purchase price together with interest.

Judgment reversed and final judgment entered for Company.

(Richards and Lloyd, J., concur.)

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

Related

Buffalo Arms, Inc. v. Remler Co.
179 Cal. App. 2d 700 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 N.E. 855, 26 Ohio App. 321, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 516, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-weighing-machine-co-v-smith-ohioctapp-1927.