Case Name: ELLIOTTE v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1926-12-09
Citations: 16 F.2d 464
Docket Number: No. 4602
Parties: ELLIOTTE v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
ELLIOTTE v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
December 9, 1926.)
No. 4602.
Keeble T. Herron, of Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner and appellant.
A. B.,Kmipineyer, of Memphis, Tenn., for respondent and appellee.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and HOUGH, District Judge.
Rehearing denied March 18, 1927.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In its important features, with a single exception, this case is like Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Robertson (6 C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 619. The exception is that, after the contract of sale was made — that is, after the written order and note in payment for the machine were executed by the purchaser — the serial number of the machine' was inserted by the seller-into the order and note. This was held below to bring the contract within the Conditional Sales Act of Tennessee. That act (Shannon's Code, § 3670al) provides that conditional sales of personal property shall be invalid unless evidenced by a written contract or memorandum "executed at the time of the sale." If we assume, though we do not so decide, that the sale that the statute contemplates should be considered as taking place when the machine is manufactured and delivered, still there is no proof to show that the number was supplied at or before that day, or "at the time of the sale." The contract does not, therefore, meet the require-ments of the statute as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Judgment reversed.