Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-03-20

NUMEROUS PETITIONS AGr DENIED
Tho On,,lon OF a Purchaser'' Tia.
billy uud,r certain Conditions.
-Ca,rs Argued Today

Petitions ior rc.hcnring we're denied
ia the following eases
Wilbur S. Henderson W. Daniel
rufngrcu 1t 81, appellants.
Ella WINNER 1t al VI Louis simon
81 al, appellants.
Ferry a. rhomas ct al ys Spring.
willie city, appellant,
George Mayor ". the Mountain
stone company, Salt Lake CIty, ami
the Salt Lake CITY RhiiiO,i com.
Iany.
Aiso In the matter OF the application
Of George II. whitmofe for a wit VI
hauca. corpur.
MOTION No HEiNsTATE.
In The case Of IS. II. Jones,appcllaut,
" Chas. "A. Davis 81 nj, tue motion 90
feiusiaiu appeal was denieI.
4 MOTION ~ DISMISS.
In The case Of n. NJ. Hansen ct al,
appellants, We Mark Fletcher, 81 al,
appellee, the motion 10 dinuil,r under
tultH three tnd Jour was allowed
4. o. COMMISSIONER MiSALLN
A pctitIoa was presented, signed by
a numucroi the members Uf tho Salt
Lake bar, asking tnat Attorney j. &.
MCNally DO appointed u. =. CON.
missioner Tor Salt Lake cry.
Their hOuOts granted tue petition
Az INTERESTING rOINI.
Only une opinion was handed down
this morning. IL was delivered by
Judge Baftch aud concurfci IA by
JUSTICES Miner anu Smi,u. lnu uass
was that VI the HUDSON Furniture Co.,
appellant, VI the Freed Furniture a
Carpet o., aud came here on appeal
from cN.Cnici Justice Ztnn's o0utt.
The action WAS originally brought 10
recover the Irlce VI goods cold under
vefbal contract, aud tue jury found lOr
tho plaiuun. Defendant moved for a
new trial, which was granted, anu the
verdic. tct hsilu. Hence tho appeal.
Inc testimony showed that plaintitl's
agent called upon DEFENDANT nnd TO-
cuiyrd verbal order Tor tno goods IA
question, NJ tno agreed price OF .i9s.uJ,
tue same 10 he delivered free on bOHtu
o. cars at HUDSON, Wis, con.
signed 10 Defendant; ga, no particular
raiifUau was designated. Upon snip.
munI 10 hAit Lake Iity a bill was sent
10 tue defendant, but before tne goods
affiysu uuienuaut tulrgfaphod, anu
then wrote, ~ blaintin refusing to
accept them. Respondent contrndeu
tnHt tnb contract was void under the
statute Oi frauds, AMI that, TO entitle
platuun 10 recover there must be
shown delivery Of thu goods ny tue
sender anu acceptance by him. Ap.
peilaLt insisted tnat the delivery u
tue gO0ds 10 the Gamer was Toceiy.
lug OF the same by defendant, anu
therefore the case uli not iall within
lhu statute uf iTaulF.
fnuir nonofs were OF opinion That 10
cntitlu prrsuu 10 recover unler con.
tfaut Huuu ~ the one under cUnsidsfa.
tiyn both An acceptance anu deliy.
cry must DO Hu0wn. Nc part
VI thu purchase money was paid
Dy the buyer, and no nute or memo.
rsndum " tie contract was tigutd by
him. Tue Transaction was male la
pursuance 81 an oral agreement, which
was void under the statute unless tue
buyer accepted aul received u part OF
the goods. a buyormlght receive the
goods l1t this expires purpose OF asoor.
taining their qualIy VI ntness for the
use intended, anu might then refuse to
accept ihem, or ho might accept and
YET never receive them. Ia neither
case did hu appropriate them 10 him.
self anu Oust the seller q his property
Ia them. Nor uld he divest the
owner Of hi. liur, of " his right
VI 6tOppage " tfuHstu. 10 salts.
fy the statute there must DO
such an act, VI sucn con.
duct. ON tho part u the buyer,
as would mauiu-t an lnienli0n
TO accept and receive the goods as his
uwu-suUu act or conduct ~ wOuli
supply tue place OF written cootTaci.
The delivery must Uu complete ue.
livery anu the acceptance nnsl, un.
conditional, Hud ifruVocablo; ~ that
the goods would be- reduced 10 the
actual pUssetsl0n Of the buyer IL was
not necessary Tor the accepting ani Te.
ceiying 10 take place VI the same time. |
one might preCUdu the olheri but both |
must have Occurred before the seller |
was entitled % recover thu price; Tor |
40 long as there WA no tual hnd ahso. |
lutte appropriation Of tho whole VI part |
OF the goods by the buyer no long ~ |
the contract by IT, terms might ho |
uNOluNu hl NltNNA IhAgt 30 l
long as either party hal a claim ~
against the other ulon the |
M beet mntteE or 30 long as the buyer
might object 60 tbc quality ui
the goods, there was no SUI
tioient acceptance, oven though the
possession Of tho same might have
been altered,
In this case the plaintiff delivered
the goods 10 tho carrier without any |
authority, except suun a. was given
by the terms Of void contract, which,
being voiu, could 100, empower him ~
10 any act which would bind or con-
cludo the defendant What the plaintiff
diI was entirely lmma,erial, the de-
iendant could accept ,hr goods or not,
~ no chose. ia thulr uunors' opinion
there was not a su.lieont acceptance
10 salisiy the statute, and the trial
court, having proceeded On the theory
that ths acceptance was suillclout,
properly granted nov trlah Ihe
otuer OF the lower court was therefore
affirmed.
ABlur A pRoMI's1RY NorE'
H..N |