National Novelty Import Co. v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

National Novelty Import Co. v. Ingram

284 S.W. 75, 214 Ky. 784, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 421

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedMay 28, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.W. 75 (National Novelty Import Co. v. Ingram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Novelty Import Co. v. Ingram, 284 S.W. 75, 214 Ky. 784, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 421 (Ky. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner.

Reversing.

The appellant, whom we will -call the plaintiff, sued the appellee, whom we will call the defendant, for $298.00’. It was unsucceessful, and has filed a motion for an appeal. 'On May 15, 1922, the defendant signed a written contract by which he purchased from the plaintiff a lot of assorted jewelry amounting to $298.00, which plaintiff shipped by express to the defendant at Eubank, Kentucky. The defendant refused to receiye the goods or to *785 pay therefor, and on September 12, plaintiff began this ■action against defendant on the contract. In October, 1922, the express company notified plaintiff that this shipment had been refused and in this notice the agent said: “I have instructions to send to An hand sale.’ If you are interested advise your disposition at once.” In order to save the goods from being sacrificed for these charges, the plaintiff instructed the agent at Eubank to return the goods to it, and it placed these goods in storage with the Metropolitan Discount Company, for the benefit of defendant, and subject to his orders, so it claims. After these goods were returned, defendant filed an answer in which he alleged that they were returned without his knowledge or consent; that the plaintiff since has had custody and control of same; that defendant has received no benefit in any way whatever from the jewelry, and therefore he asked to be dismissed with julgment for his costs. To that answer, plaintiff filed reply in which it set up the circumstances under which this jewelry was shipped to St. Louis and stored. The defendant demurred to this reply. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed plaintiff’s petition. This court has said in the case of Lamb v. White, 204 Ky. 557, 264 S. W. 1113:

‘ ‘ The general rule is, that when a buyer of specific personal property declines to accept and pay for the property purchased, the seller has a choice of three remedies: first, he may retain the property for the buyer, and sue him for the contract price . • . . ”

This the plaintiff did, and the court should not have dismissed its petition. The motion for an appeal is granted. The judgment is reversed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner.

Reversing.

The appellant, whom we will -call the plaintiff, sued the appellee, whom we will call the defendant, for $298.00’. It was unsucceessful, and has filed a motion for an appeal. 'On May 15, 1922, the defendant signed a written contract by which he purchased from the plaintiff a lot of assorted jewelry amounting to $298.00, which plaintiff shipped by express to the defendant at Eubank, Kentucky. The defendant refused to receiye the goods or to *785 pay therefor, and on September 12, plaintiff began this ■action against defendant on the contract. In October, 1922, the express company notified plaintiff that this shipment had been refused and in this notice the agent said: “I have instructions to send to An hand sale.’ If you are interested advise your disposition at once.” In order to save the goods from being sacrificed for these charges, the plaintiff instructed the agent at Eubank to return the goods to it, and it placed these goods in storage with the Metropolitan Discount Company, for the benefit of defendant, and subject to his orders, so it claims. After these goods were returned, defendant filed an answer in which he alleged that they were returned without his knowledge or consent; that the plaintiff since has had custody and control of same; that defendant has received no benefit in any way whatever from the jewelry, and therefore he asked to be dismissed with julgment for his costs. To that answer, plaintiff filed reply in which it set up the circumstances under which this jewelry was shipped to St. Louis and stored. The defendant demurred to this reply. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed plaintiff’s petition. This court has said in the case of Lamb v. White, 204 Ky. 557, 264 S. W. 1113:

‘ ‘ The general rule is, that when a buyer of specific personal property declines to accept and pay for the property purchased, the seller has a choice of three remedies: first, he may retain the property for the buyer, and sue him for the contract price . • . . ”

This the plaintiff did, and the court should not have dismissed its petition. The motion for an appeal is granted. The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W. 75, 214 Ky. 784, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-novelty-import-co-v-ingram-kyctapphigh-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack