The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1893-02-16
IMPORTANT DECISION.
OPINION AND DECREE OF COURT OF
APPEALS.

At the January Term of the
Honorable Circuit Court of Appeals
held at Benton, Judge E. w. Suth-
erlin, as the organ of said Court,
delivered the following opinion in
the case named below, which is
published for the information of our
readers:
r. N. Mcclellan ] Court of Appeals,
VS.. Bossier Parish,
6. l. Gates and January Term,
G. II. Gates. 1898.
Plaintiff instituted this suit
against the two defendants alleging
that he is the owner of certain ma
chinery described in the petition in
the possession of defendants. He
coupled his action with the conserv-
atory writ of sequestration, and the
property was seized. Plaintiff pray
| ed TO be decreed the owner thereof
and put in possession.
On May 31st, 1890, plaintiff en-
tered into a written contract with
the saw mill firm of Gates & Hulse,
composed of one of the defendants,
G. L. Gates, and one, Hulse. The
firm was represented by the partner,
Gates, in the making of this con-
tract.
By the terms ofthe contract plain
tiff put Gates & Hulse in possession
oil the machinery in question, which
was therein estimated to be worth
$500 90. Gates & Hulse were to
keep the said property for plaintiff,
and subject to his order, and to be
responsible to plaintiff for the good
condition of same. Gates & Hulse
obligated themselves to ship to
| plaintiff, at Shreveport, two cars of
lumber per week, commencing June
10, 1890, until the value of 5000 in
lumber, at 81 per thousand feet, had
been received by plaintiff. Then
plaintiff bound and obligated him
self "to make to Gates & Hulse a
good and valid title to said outfit"
This was clearly not a contract of
sale. By this contract the owner
ship Of the property in question did
not pass from plaintiff to Gates &
Hulse. 1t was simply an agreement
to sell with the suspensive condition
precedent that the price should be
first paid before the ownership
should pass.
The defendant, Charles L. Gates,
made no defense for himself. De
PENDANT, G. Fl. Gates, however, con-
tends that subsequent to the writ
ten contract between plaintiff and
Gates & Hulse, and shortly there
after, and while the machinery was
still on the cars at Shreveport for
| shipment and before it was received
at Hanks mill, the place where in
the contemplation of the parties it
was to be used, the firm of Gates &
Hulse had dissolved, and that a
new and distinct agreement was
made between him and plaintiff and
Q. L. Gates, that G. Fl. Gates was to
be substituted in the contract for
Gates & Hnlse and that he was to
ship lumber to plaintiff, at Shreve-
port, for which plaintiff was to pay
to him one-half cash as the lumber
was received and the other half was
to go to the payment for the machin-
cry in question until fully paid for.
He, q. II. Gates, represents that
about June, 1890, he leased the
Hanks mill property from S. j.
Zelgler, to whom it had been re-
transferred about the time of the
dissolution of the firm of Gates &
Hulse, and that he had operated the
same for his individual account up
to the spring of 1892, when it was
transferred to the Bossier Lumber
Company, and that during his ope-
ration of the mill he had shipped
sufficient lumber from there to plain