Simmons Hardware Co. v. Mullen

22 N.W. 294, 33 Minn. 195, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 41
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 6, 1885·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The agreement for the sale of the goods by plaintiff to Whiteher, the price exceeding $50, and there being no memorandum in writing, and no part of the purchase-money being paid, was void under the statute of frauds, unless there was not only a delivery by the vendor, but an acceptance on the part of the purchaser. The authorities are substantially uniform that delivery by the seller [196] to a carrier selected by him, for the purpose of transportation, is not of itself an acceptance to take the case out of the operation of the statute. Norman v. Phillips, 14 M. & W. 277; Hanson v. Armitage, 5 Barn. & Ald. 557; Maxwell v. Brown, 39 Me. 98; Johnson v. Cuttle, 105 Mass. 447; Grimes v. Van Vechten, 20 Mich. 410; Allard v. Greasert, 61 N. Y. 1; Keiwert v. Meyer, 62 Ind. 587; Taylor v. Mueller, 30 Minn. 343.

The plaintiff in this instance selected the carrier. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider what would have been the effect, in respect to taking the case out of the statute, of delivery to a carrier designated by the purchaser. Whitcher not having done any act of acceptance, the goods still belonged to the plaintiff, and could not have been levied on as Whitcher’s.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Simmons Hardware Co. v. Mullen, 22 N.W. 294, 33 Minn. 195, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 41 (Mich. 1885).

22 N.W. 294 (Simmons Hardware Co. v. Mullen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams-Hayward Shoe Co. v. Brooks
64 P. 342 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1901)
Powder River Live Stock Co. v. Lamb
56 N.W. 1019 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)
Fontaine v. Bush
41 N.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889)