Iron City Grain Co. v. Arnold

Supreme Court of Alabama

Iron City Grain Co. v. Arnold

112 So. 123, 215 Ala. 543, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 580

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 24, 1927

Docket6 Div. 724.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 So. 123 (Iron City Grain Co. v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iron City Grain Co. v. Arnold, 112 So. 123, 215 Ala. 543, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 580 (Ala. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, X

Looking to the whole evidence, we think it fairly supports the findings of the trial court and the conclusion that there was a complete and effective delivery of the car of hay at defendant’s warehouse in North Birmingham, in conformity with the seller’s obligation in the premises, from which it resulted that title passed to the buyer, accompanied by the risk of loss. Capehart v. Furman, etc., Co., 103 Ala. 671, 16 So. 627, 49 Am. St. Rep. 60; Ala. Nat. Bank v. Parker, 153 Ala. 597, 601, 45 So. 161. Appellant’s argument is limited to a negation of the fact of efficient delivery as found by the trial court.

But, under the evidence before the court, delivery was not essential to the passage of the title from the seller to the buyer. Where the goods sold are in the possession of the seller, and are definitely ascertained and agreed upon — nothing’ remaining to be done to determine their price, quantity, or identity— the sale is complete, and the title passes by force of the contract itself, in the absence of anything to show a contrary intention. Magee v. Billingsley, 3 Ala. 679, 693; Screws v. Roach, 22 Ala. 675, 676; Hudson v. Weir, 29 Ala. 294; Darden v. Lovelace, 52 Ala. 289; Lehman & Co. v. Warren et al., 53 Ala. 535, 540; Mobile Savings Bank v. Fry, 69 Ala. 348; Pilgreen v. State, 71 Ala. 368; Foley v. Felrath, 98 Ala. 176, 180, 13 So. 485, 39 Am. St. Rep. 39; Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 628, 59 So. 273.

Here every requirement for an executed sale was present, and the resulting presumption that the title was intended-to pass, and did pass, presently, by the agreement of purchase and sale, was not impaired by any contrary tendency of the evidence.

Under the authorities above noted, the title to this carload of hay passed to defendant by and at the time of the sale, irrespective of the question and fact of delivery, and the loss falls on defendant.

It results that judgment was properly rendered for plaintiff for the stipulated price, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, X

Looking to the whole evidence, we think it fairly supports the findings of the trial court and the conclusion that there was a complete and effective delivery of the car of hay at defendant’s warehouse in North Birmingham, in conformity with the seller’s obligation in the premises, from which it resulted that title passed to the buyer, accompanied by the risk of loss. Capehart v. Furman, etc., Co., 103 Ala. 671, 16 So. 627, 49 Am. St. Rep. 60; Ala. Nat. Bank v. Parker, 153 Ala. 597, 601, 45 So. 161. Appellant’s argument is limited to a negation of the fact of efficient delivery as found by the trial court.

But, under the evidence before the court, delivery was not essential to the passage of the title from the seller to the buyer. Where the goods sold are in the possession of the seller, and are definitely ascertained and agreed upon — nothing’ remaining to be done to determine their price, quantity, or identity— the sale is complete, and the title passes by force of the contract itself, in the absence of anything to show a contrary intention. Magee v. Billingsley, 3 Ala. 679, 693; Screws v. Roach, 22 Ala. 675, 676; Hudson v. Weir, 29 Ala. 294; Darden v. Lovelace, 52 Ala. 289; Lehman & Co. v. Warren et al., 53 Ala. 535, 540; Mobile Savings Bank v. Fry, 69 Ala. 348; Pilgreen v. State, 71 Ala. 368; Foley v. Felrath, 98 Ala. 176, 180, 13 So. 485, 39 Am. St. Rep. 39; Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 628, 59 So. 273.

Here every requirement for an executed sale was present, and the resulting presumption that the title was intended-to pass, and did pass, presently, by the agreement of purchase and sale, was not impaired by any contrary tendency of the evidence.

Under the authorities above noted, the title to this carload of hay passed to defendant by and at the time of the sale, irrespective of the question and fact of delivery, and the loss falls on defendant.

It results that judgment was properly rendered for plaintiff for the stipulated price, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 123, 215 Ala. 543, 1927 Ala. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iron-city-grain-co-v-arnold-ala-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack