Case ID: mass_21/html/0533-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles G. Carleton et al. versus Charles P. Sumner.
    Goods were purchased on a credit, the vendee agreeing to give therefor certain bills of exchange, and were afterwards put on board a vessel by the vendee’s order, without any objection being made by the vendor that the condition of sale had not been complied with. Held, that the goods were liable to attachment as the property of the vendee.
    Replevin for divers goods. The defendant pleaded, that at the time of taking the goods, the property was in S. and J. Robinson and D. R. Newson, and traversed that it was in the plaintiffs ; and on this traverse issue was joined.
    At the trial, before Wilde J., it appeared, that the Robin-sons and Newson were partners, doing business at New York, and that S. Robinson, between the 17th of August and 2d of September, purchased of the plaintiffs the goods in question, on a credit of four and six months, and agreed to give therefor the acceptances of his house. The goods were packed and marked by the plaintiffs, “ S. R. & Co.” On the 2d of September, they were, by order of S. Robinson,, put on board a sloop, and on the same day were attached by the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Suffolk. After the attachment, S. Robinson refused to give the acceptances according to his agreement; and the plaintiffs contended that the sale was thereupon void, and that they might 'reclaim the goods. But the jury were instructed, that although the sale was conditional, yet if the goods were not delivered subject to the condition, the property vested in the vendees ; and that as the delivery on board the sloop was by order of the purchaser, there was no right in the plaintiffs to stop the goods in transitu. A verdict was returned for the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted to these instructions.
    
      March 24th.
    
    
      April 2d.
    
    
      D. A. Simmons and Merrill, for the plaintiffs,
    contended that the case showed a conditional delivery, and cited 4 Mass. R. 405; 17 Mass. R. 606; Cooper’s Justin. 593; 1 East, 515; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 437; 13 Johns. R. 434; 1 Campb. 427.
    Rand, contra, was stopped by the Court.
   Per Curiam.

This case is settled by the case of Hussey v. Thornton, 4 Mass. R. 405. The facts were similar, except that there the goods were not in fact delivered, but held for the performance of the condition of the sale. Here the contract of sale was complete and the goods were delivered without any condition express or implied; wherefore the vendor could not reclaim them.

Judgment according to verdict and for a return. 
      
       See Smith v. Dannie, 6 Pick. 262, 2 Kent’s Comm. (3d ed., 497, ante 452, n. 1.