Corbitt Buggy Co. v. Ricaud

Fourth Circuit

Corbitt Buggy Co. v. Ricaud

169 F. 935, 95 C.C.A. 279, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4643

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1909

DocketNo. 859

StatusPublished

This text of 169 F. 935 (Corbitt Buggy Co. v. Ricaud) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corbitt Buggy Co. v. Ricaud, 169 F. 935, 95 C.C.A. 279, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4643 (4th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinions

PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In disposing of the case of the Walter A. Wood Company v. Eubanks, Trustee of Implement & Supply Company (decided at this term of the court) 169 Fed. 929, we considered and passed upon every material point involved in this controversy, and therefore do not deem it necessary to enter into a discussion of those matters which have already been determined.

The contract relied upon in this instance is not, in our opinion, a conditional sale, therefore it does not come within that class of instruments required by the North Carolina statute to be registered. It clearly creates a trust in favor of the grantor, and by its provisions the vendee holds the property, or the proceeds of the sale thereof, for the sole use and benefit of the vendor until his debt is paid. Even if this contract were a conditional sale, under the laws of North Carolina such sale would be good inter partes without registration. In this instance the trustee occupies the same relation to the vendor that the bankrupt sustained prior to his adjudication as a bankrupt.

We have carefully considered the contentions of the parties with respect to the matters in dispute in this proceeding, and are of opinion that the court below erred in its ruling affirming the report of the referee ; therefore we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought to be obtained in this proceeding.

For the reasons stated in the case of Walter A. Wood Company v. Implement & Supply Company, supra, and the cases cited in support thereof, and also the case of York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344, 26 Sup. Ct. 481, 50 L. Ed. 782, the judgment of the District [937]*937Court is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In disposing of the case of the Walter A. Wood Company v. Eubanks, Trustee of Implement & Supply Company (decided at this term of the court) 169 Fed. 929, we considered and passed upon every material point involved in this controversy, and therefore do not deem it necessary to enter into a discussion of those matters which have already been determined.

The contract relied upon in this instance is not, in our opinion, a conditional sale, therefore it does not come within that class of instruments required by the North Carolina statute to be registered. It clearly creates a trust in favor of the grantor, and by its provisions the vendee holds the property, or the proceeds of the sale thereof, for the sole use and benefit of the vendor until his debt is paid. Even if this contract were a conditional sale, under the laws of North Carolina such sale would be good inter partes without registration. In this instance the trustee occupies the same relation to the vendor that the bankrupt sustained prior to his adjudication as a bankrupt.

We have carefully considered the contentions of the parties with respect to the matters in dispute in this proceeding, and are of opinion that the court below erred in its ruling affirming the report of the referee ; therefore we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought to be obtained in this proceeding.

For the reasons stated in the case of Walter A. Wood Company v. Implement & Supply Company, supra, and the cases cited in support thereof, and also the case of York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344, 26 Sup. Ct. 481, 50 L. Ed. 782, the judgment of the District [937]*937Court is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F. 935, 95 C.C.A. 279, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbitt-buggy-co-v-ricaud-ca4-1909.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack