Opinion ID: 7119194
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were the instructions erroneous?

Text: 3‘ off'vhá/co™™ statutes delivery. The court, in substance, instructed the jury that it is not claimed by plaintiff that any part of the purchase price was paid by the defendant, but it is claimed by the plaintiff that the corn in question was delivered, so far as it could be delivered to the defendant, and that, if there wag more ¿0ne by the plaintiff before the defendant could take said corn and remove same' from plaintiff’s farm, then there was a delivery: that is, if the plaintiff turned over the possession of said corn to the defendant as fully and completely as could be done without the actual removal of said corn from said premises, and if it was his purpose and intent., from what was said and done at the time, that the defendant should assume and exercise full control and dominion over the corn, and it was so understood by the defendant, then and in that event, the jury would be authorized to find that the possession of said corn was delivered by plaintiff to the defendant on the day of sale, and that such delivery took the oral contract out of the statute of frauds, and thereby became a valid and subsisting contract between the parties. The theory of the defendant was also stated in this' instruction. In Instruction No. 7, the jury was further told: “If you fail to find from the preponderance of the evidence that the said corn was in fact delivered to the defendant at the time of the sale, then the defendant cannot be liable in this case, and your verdict should be for the defendant. The real question in this case is, Who was the owner of the corn in question at the time it was destroyed by fire? If you fail to find from the preponderance of the evidence that said corn was delivered to the defendant, then, as a matter of law, plaintiff was the owner of said corn at the time it was destroyed, ’ ’ The instructions in this case must be read as a whole, and, upon so reading, the law as given by the court is plain and unambiguous, and contains a correct exposition of legal principles applicable to the facts. We find no error in the record, and the judgment entered by the trial court is, therefore,- — Affirmed. Evans, C. J., Weaver and Preston, JJ., concur.