Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Price

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Price

81 Mo. App. 243, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 391

DecidedOctober 30, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 81 Mo. App. 243 (Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Price, 81 Mo. App. 243, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

This is an action of replevin for a gasoline engine. Judgment was rendered for defendant in consequence of a peremptory instruction requiring a verdict for him. Defendant claims the property as constable under the levy of an execution against one Erank at the suit of M. B. Coleman.

The evidence for plaintiff showed a sale to Erank by plaintiff and possession delivered to him. But plaintiff claims that the property in the engine never passed to Erank for the reason that there was annexed to the sale a stipulation as to how it should be paid for and that it should prove satisfactory to Erank. And that the stipulation as to payment had in no part been complied with and that the engine was not satisfactory to Frank. These conditions of sale were verbal and in no respect complied with section 5178, Revised Statutes 1889, they not being in writing, acknowledged and recorded. Coleman being a creditor of Frank had a right to regard the property as Frank’s free of any condition claimed. Collins v. Wilhoit, 108 Mo. 451; Oester v. Sitlington, 115 Mo. 247. The court was right in granting defendant’s peremptory instruction and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

ELLISON, J.

This is an action of replevin for a gasoline engine. Judgment was rendered for defendant in consequence of a peremptory instruction requiring a verdict for him. Defendant claims the property as constable under the levy of an execution against one Erank at the suit of M. B. Coleman.

The evidence for plaintiff showed a sale to Erank by plaintiff and possession delivered to him. But plaintiff claims that the property in the engine never passed to Erank for the reason that there was annexed to the sale a stipulation as to how it should be paid for and that it should prove satisfactory to Erank. And that the stipulation as to payment had in no part been complied with and that the engine was not satisfactory to Frank. These conditions of sale were verbal and in no respect complied with section 5178, Revised Statutes 1889, they not being in writing, acknowledged and recorded. Coleman being a creditor of Frank had a right to regard the property as Frank’s free of any condition claimed. Collins v. Wilhoit, 108 Mo. 451; Oester v. Sitlington, 115 Mo. 247. The court was right in granting defendant’s peremptory instruction and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Mo. App. 243, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansur-tebbetts-implement-co-v-price-moctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack