Court Opinion

ID: 9830108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:52:34.032318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:12.809191
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our opinion in quoting from the testimony of defendant’s salesman, T. H. Turner, we said: “No, there was no contract signed by Mr. R. C. Burton whereby he agreed to pux--ehase (either machine).” Appellee submits that the quotation as to the words “either machine” in parenthesis, is error, and that the evidence is sufficient to show that the Burroughs Adding Machine Company accepted Burton’s order and thereby made a Sale to Burton of the Burroughs portable subtractor, and necessarily received at least a part of the consideration for the machine; that such being the evidence appellant lost nothing of value, and there was no theft of .the machine, and the taking of the machine, at most, was a trespass and not theft.
The words “either machine” in parenthesis in the opinion were not the words of the witness, and were intended only to express what we thought the evidence showed and to abbreviate the statement -of the evidence.
In passing on the motion, we have concluded to state the evidence more fully. The evidence shows that Burton gave the salesman Turner an order for the Burroughs portable subtractor, not the identical machine Burton carried away. Defendant put in evidence a blank form of contract used in making sales, and defendant’s witness Murphy said: “We always require a written contract with every sale whether the terms upon which the machine are sold are cash or on the installment plan. This is a copy of the contract required in every ease.”
The witness Turner who handled the transaction with Burton in Tennessee, said: “This R. 0. Burton gave me an order for a Burroughs Machine; the model of the machine he gave me the order for was known as the .Burroughs Portable gubtractor. * * * He requested me to loan him a machine pending the delivery to him by the company of the one he ordered. Yes, I left the Burroughs Portable Adding Machine with him at the time he gave me the order for the Burroughs Portable gubtractor. Yes, this Burroughs Portable Adding Machine bearing gerial No. 1193712 was left with Mr. R. O. Burton only as a ‘loan machine’ f.or his use pending the delivery to him by the company of the Burroughs Portable Adding Machine, gerial No. 1193712. No, I did not sign any papers whereby I, as agent for the Burroughs Adding Machine Company, passed title to said R. C. Burton *641from the Burroughs Adding Machine Company.”
Plaintiff’s reasoning seems to be that, if Burton ordered one machine upon which he may have made a part payment, as may have been the case as indicated from the blank form in evidence, but took the “loan machine” put in his possession, he could not be guilty of the theft of the “loan machine” taken by Burton for which he had made no order or even contemplated buying. The court submitted the question of theft of the “loan machine,” not the machine ordered. But if, as suggested by plaintiffs, Burton had made part payment on the machine ordered, the jury then had before them the question, as in the definition of theft submitted, Did Burton take the machine “with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same”? The jury found that he did. It may be, as suggested in plaintiff’s motion, that Burton’s order for the niaehine he thought to buy, and if the order could not be countermanded, and the order was accepted by the seller, such facts would ordinarily constitute a binding contract of sale. But such is not the evidence as to the machine involved here.
We think the case was fairly tried, and we see no reason to remand for another trial. The motion is overruled.