Devane v. . Fennell

24 N.C. 36
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1841
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 24 N.C. 36 (Devane v. . Fennell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Devane v. . Fennell, 24 N.C. 36 (N.C. 1841).

Opinion

Daniel, J.

The owners of the Saw Mill agreed to give the plaintiff four dollars per thousand feet for his raft of timber, when inspected and measured. The timber was impounded, to secure it against the dangers of the river, and to have it ready for inspection and measurement. When it was placed in the pen, it was not intended to be an absolute delivery ; the constructive possession was still in the vendor; there remained something to be done by the vendor, to wit, to have it inspected and measured. It is a well settled rule of law that the vendee’s title to the property is not complete by force of a contract of sale, if any thing-remain to be done on the part of the seller to ascertain the price, quantity, or individuality of the goods before delivery : thus if a portion of a larger quantity be sold and cannot be ascertained without weighing or measuring, or other act separating and distinguishing it from the rest, the purchaser has no title, till his portion has been set apart. Burk v Davies, 2 Maul. & S. 397. Austin v Craner, 4 Taunton, 644. White v Wilks, 5 Taunton, 176. Simmons v Swift, 12 Eng. C. L. R. 388. Judge Kent says, it is a fundamental principle, pervading everywhere the doctrine of the sales of chattels, that if the goods be sold by number, weight, or measure, the sale is incomplete, and the risk continues with the seller, until the specific property be separated and identified. 2 Kent’s Com-496.

We are of the opinion that the charge of the Judge below was correct, and that the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Cueiaw. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. One 1956 Model Ford 2-Door Customline Automobile
157 F. Supp. 431 (E.D. North Carolina, 1957)
United States v. One 1955 Model Ford 2 Door Victoria Automobile
157 F. Supp. 798 (E.D. North Carolina, 1957)
Washington Mills Co. v. Frohlick
5 Tenn. App. 217 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Elliott v. Southern Railway Co.
71 S.E. 339 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Heiser v. . Mears
27 S.E. 117 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Albemarle Lumber Co. v. . Wilcox
10 S.E. 871 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Wittkowsky v. . Wasson
71 N.C. 451 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.C. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devane-v-fennell-nc-1841.