John A. Dunn Co. v. C. F. Weber & Co.

CONREY, P. J.

In this action to recover possession of 2,000 chairs, bearing the manufacturer’s mark of plaintiff, judgment was entered against defendant for possession of

[46]

said chairs, or $4,990, the value thereof, with costs. From this judgment defendant appeals.

It is contended by appellant that the judgment should he reversed because the plaintiff did not have title to the goods in question at the time of commencement of this action ' (that is, on August 22, 1927) ; and because title to the goods vested finally in the defendant on or about March 19, 1927; and because the evidence is insufficient to support certain specified findings, to wit: (a) “That at all the times mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff exercised control and dominion over all of said chairs, including the chairs not shipped and the chairs delivered to the defendant C. F. Weber & Company at Los Angeles, California.” (b) “That it was the intention of the plaintiff John A. Dunn Company and the Standard School Equipment Company that the title to all or any part of said 4000 eighteen-inch teacher’s chairs should not pass to said Standard School Equipment Company until the said Standard School Equipment Company accepted same and made payment therefor.” (c) “That, subsequent to December 28, 1926, no agreement for the sale of said 1,996 chairs delivered at Los Angeles was made between the plaintiff and the Standard School Equipment Company or C. F. Weber & Company, or both, nor did the plaintiff consent to any alleged sale of said personal property to the defendant by the said Standard School Equipment Company.”

The defendant was a furniture dealer at Los Angeles. Standard School Equipment Company was a corporation having its principal place of business at Louisville, Kentucky, and engaged in the business of selling school furniture to local dealers. Standard School Equipment Company obtained its wares by purchase from manufacturers of school furniture. In July, 1926, appellant entered into a contract with the board of education of the city of Los Angeles to furnish to said board of education 4,000 eighteen-inch chairs, conforming to a certain specification and sample. Appellant then entered into a contract with Standard School Equipment Company by which the company agreed to furnish and sell to appellant the required 4,000 chairs. Next, Standard School Equipment Company entered into a contract with respondent whereby respondent agreed to manufacture 4,000 eighteen-inch chairs known as