In re John H. Parker Co.
This text of 268 F. 868 (In re John H. Parker Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This matter is before me on exceptions to the report of Paul E. Carson, special master, to whom this matter was referred, finding that the United Cork Flooring Company is the owner of certain personal property in the possession of the receiver. This Flooring Company on June 8, 1917, made a subcontract with the John PI. Parker Company, the principal contractor, to furnish the labor and materials and install a floor in the Butler Art Gallery, at Youngstown, for the construction of which the Parker Company was principal contractor. Pursuant to this contract, the Flooring Company specially manufactured in its own plant certain cork tile, and shipped same, together with certain other necessary materials, by railroad freight to its own order and address at Youngstown, Ohio, care of the [869]*869Butler Art Gallery. When these materials arrived, the building had not yet progressed to the point where the flooring could be installed, and the superintendent of the Parker Company, at the request of the Flooring Company, unloaded these materials and stored them on the art gallery premises, where other materials to he used in this construction were stored. After the Parker Company became bankrupt, and the receiver was appointed, this receiver, finding these materials in the original packages, stored the same. The Flooring Company’s contract entitled it to be paid on estimates 85 per cent, for labor and materials only as the materials were placed and installed in the building. Shortly before bankruptcy of the Parker Company it sent to the Flooring Company a note for $1,200, which the Flooring Company contends was received after bankruptcy and was never accepted. In point of fact the note was returned.
These principles of law have no application to the foregoing facts because there was no contract of sale; but, on the other hand, the materials are and were intended to be the property of the Flooring Company until they became the property of the art gallery by being used in constructing a building on its premises. Kven if a note had been given and accepted, it would be regarded only as an advance payment on a contract yet to be performed, and would not have the effect of changing the nature of the contract or converting it into a sale of materials.
An exception may be noted on behalf of the receiver.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
268 F. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-h-parker-co-ohnd-1920.