Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Dearman

54 So. 310, 97 Miss. 622
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 So. 310 (Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Dearman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. Dearman, 54 So. 310, 97 Miss. 622 (Mich. 1910).

Opinion

Whiteield, O.

The decision of this ease pivots upon the single legal inquiry whether the instrument in question evidences a conditional sale with a reservation of title as mere security for the debt, or a lease with all the incidents of a lease. There are several cases in our reports construing instruments, written in different terms, however, from the instrument here involved, as conditional sales, operating as mere security for the purchase price. See Ross-Mehan Co. v. Pascagoula Ice Co., 72 Miss. 615, 18 South. 364, and the authorities therein cited. But the instrument here is very radically different from the instruments construed in those cases.

The case which controls this case is the case of Nobles v. McCarly, 61 Miss. 456. The instrument there was in the following words:

“This agreement, made and entered into by and between W. A. Moore, agent for James Haley, of the first part, and R. F. Swilly, of tire second part, to-wit: The party of the second part agrees to pay W. A. Moore sixty dollars for the rent of a place known as the ‘Haley Place’ and now occupied by said Swilly, as rent for the year 1882, and one hundred dollars for each of the years 1883-4-5, this to be placed on Swilly’s note for six hundred dollars, due and payable one day after date, as a credit. It is agreed and understood this one hundred dollars for each year is to be collected as rent. Hpon the prompt and full payment of said note and interest on or before the 1st day of January, 1886, the party of the first part agrees and hereby [633]*633binds himself and his heirs to- make said Swilly a warranty deed -to said place. When the above amounts have been paid as agreed, then this bond to be void; otherwise to remain in full force.
“[Signed] W. A. Moore.”

And the court, in construing that instrument, said:

“Our interpretation of the contract between Moore, as agent -of Haley and Swilly, is that the latter became a tenant, obliged to pay rent as stipulated, with the right to have the title to the land in fee on payment of the note for $600 and interest, and the rent he might pay was to go as credit on the- purchase money. There was nothing forbidden by law in this arrangement, and the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.” The instrument in this case is in the following words:
“Lease.
■“The Puffer Manufacturing Company, Manufacturers of Soda and Mineral Water Apparatus, Extracts and Supplies.
“Boston, Mass., January 6th, 1908.
“Know all men by these presents, that I, W. A. Dearman, of Purvis, state of Mississippi, have hired, leased and received of Puffer Manufacturing Co., a corporation duly established by law and having its usual place of business in the city of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the term, to wit, five years, ten and 25/100 months, ending December 1, 1913, subject to the conditions herein stated, the following described chattels and goods:
“One Constellation style soda and mineral water draft apparatus, numbered 396, consisting of Knolville and Italian marble dispensing counter with return, and II syrup jars and lifts, Onyx draft stand with four draft arms and light fixtures, work board and two sinks, 2 rubbish chutes, fruit board, fruit ■drawer, automatic tumbler washer, cracked ice basin and bottle rings, towel rail, corrugated drainers, 2 ice cream cabinets and packers, cooler box, coolers, leaders, pipes and all appurtenances [634]*634thereto, Back fixtures consisting of refrigerator base with wood superstructure and mirrors and light fixtures, marble refrigerator slab, one style four Faithful carbonatar numbered 13.54 with pump, cylinder, regulator, gauges, valves, pipes and connections, six wire chairs, manufactured by the said Puffer 'Manufacturing Co., and numbered as above; and I do promise and agree with the said Puffer Manufacturing Co., its representatives and assigns, to pay it or them for the possession and reasonable use thereof, for said term, the sum of one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five ($1,775.00) dollars, as rent, to be paid, fifty ($50.00) dollars cash, and the balance in the installments set forth in the several obligations given by me therefor as follows :

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

Related

Wood v. Morath
90 So. 714 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1921)
Robertson v. Puffer Mfg. Co.
73 So. 804 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 So. 310, 97 Miss. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puffer-manufacturing-co-v-dearman-miss-1910.