Court Opinion

ID: 8185009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 23:07:22.062339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:40:23.042348
License: Public Domain

Makshall, J.
The sole question presented is whether defendant is liable for the logs that were lost, in view of the fact that plaintiff retained the title solely as security, and that such logs were' never scaled on the mill deck.
Where property is sold and delivered, and the vendor has fully performed all the conditions of the contract of sale on his part, and the intention of the parties at the time of the *529making of the contract, as in this case, clearly is that the vendor is to have no interest in tbe property after delivery, except as security for the unpaid purchase money; that, subject to the right to resort to said property as such security, the entire dominion and control over the same are turned over to and assumed by the vendee, as such, although, for the purpose of retaining effectually the security, the contract of sale provides that the title and right of possession shall remain in the vendor, as security, until the purchase price is fully paid, and though the amount of the property is yet to be ascertained by a measurement in order to determine the amount of the purchase money,— if any of such property is lost after such delivery, before measurement, such loss must fall upon the vendee, whether the loss accrues through his negligence or otherwise, and the amount of such lost property may be ascertained by competent evidence. The relation of the parties to each other in respect to the question here presented, in such a case, is the same as between a mortgagor and a mortgagee of personal property, though the form of the instrument be that of a conditional sale; and the authorities holding that in case of a conditional sale, strictly so called, the risk of loss is on the vendor till title actually vests in the vendee, have no application whatever to such a state of facts. The conditional vendee, having possession subject only to the vendor’s reservation of title as security for the unpaid purchase money, is in a sense the owner; if he pays the purchase money, he becomes the absolute owner, without any new transaction or bill of sale; if the goods be wrongfully taken away from him by a third party, he may recover their full value of the wrongdoer; and if the property is lost or stolen while in his possession, whether by or without fault on his part, he must nevertheless pay the full price agreed upon. Tufts v. Griffin, 107 N. C. 49; Burnley v. Tufts, 66 Miss. 49.
The ruling challenged on this appeal is substantially in *530accordance with the law as here stated, and it follows that tbe judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.
By the Gourt:— Judgment affirmed.