Drake v. Scott

136 Ala. 261
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

HARALSON, J.

“Where there is a sale of goods, to be paid for in cash on delivery, payment and delivery are concurrent acts. In such case, payment is a condition precedent to passing title to the vendee. If delivery is made without demanding payment, or under circumstances showing no expectation of immediate payment, the condition is waived, and the title passes; but, if the goods are put into the possession of the buyer, on the understanding or agreement that he will pay for them immediately, and he fails 'or refuses to do so, the seller may recover the goods.” — Shines v. Steiner, 76 Ala. 458; Harmon v. Goetter, 87 Ala. 325; Benjamin on Sales, (6th ed.), §§ 1, 320, and n. 4, p. 298.

The facts in this case show, without conflict, that the contract for the sale of the chattels sued for, to the defendant by the plaintiff, was for cash to be paid on de-liverv, the payment being a condition precedent to passing the title to defendant.

Affirmed.

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

Drake v. Scott, 136 Ala. 261 (Ala. 1902).

136 Ala. 261 (Drake v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slaton v. Lamb
71 So. 2d 289 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Moore v. Long
33 So. 2d 6 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Warrick v. Liddon
160 So. 534 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Atlantic Life Ins. v. First Nat. Bank
62 F.2d 586 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Smith v. Dannelly
141 So. 568 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1932)
Glenn v. City of Birmingham
137 So. 292 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
In re Liebig
255 F. 458 (Second Circuit, 1918)
Eaton v. State
78 So. 321 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Allen Lumber Co. v. Higuera
85 A. 979 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1913)
Masoner v. Bell
1908 OK 54 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)