Lambert v. McCloud

California Supreme Court Feb 15, 1883Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the purchaser was entitled to possession of the horse under the contract and had not been shown to be in default, the plaintiff failed to establish a right to recover the property. The judgment was reversed because the lower court failed to make necessary findings regarding whether the purchaser had ceased to perform his contractual obligations.

Issues

Whether the purchaser of a horse under a conditional sale agreement had the right to retain possession of the property.
Whether the purchaser's failure to notify the seller of a profit or the bankruptcy of the purchaser's firm constituted a breach of contract sufficient to terminate the right of possession.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“On such a sale the right of property and right of possession vest in the purchaser (Coates), unless it is stipulated to the contrary.”

“But it was not stipulated that Coates should not have the right of possession of the horse; and this right is sufficient to maintain the possession of the defendant claiming under Coates, unless such right has terminated.”

Synopsis

Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Thornton, J. This is an action of claim and delivery of a horse alleged to be of the value of seven hundred dollars. Judgment passed for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and defendant appeals from the judgment and the order denying the motion above mentioned.

The principal question arises on the decision of the court below, which, so far as necessary to be stated, is contained in the following findings of fact:-

“ 1. That in the month of May, 1876, the plaintiff was the owner, and entitled to the immediate possession of the personal property described in the complaint filed in this action.

“ 2. That in the month of May, and while still the owner of said horse, and so in possession of the said horse, the said plaintiff agreed with one W. D. Coates to sell the said horse to said Coates upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: —

“ That the said Coates should purchase for the said plaintiff as much stock as one thousand dollars would carry upon a margin, to wit, the customary margin allowed in the office of the firm of Hunt & Coates, and should carry said stock for said plaintiff, at the risk of said W. D. Coates, until a profit was realized upon the same of one thousand dollars; and when said [163]profit was so realized, the said Coates should notify the said plaintiff, and that upon the receipt of said notice the said plaintiff should elect to draw down the said profit of one thousand dollars, or carry at his own risk the stock so purchased as aforesaid.

“ 3. That a bill of sale of said horse from the said plaintiff to said Coates was made and signed by the plaintiff, and was, by the consent and agreement of the said plaintiff and the said Coates, placed in the hands of one John L. Hunt, to be held by him in trust for both parties, until the said Coates should notify the said plaintiff of the realization of a profit of one thousand dollars upon the stock purchased as aforesaid, and that thereupon the said Hunt should deliver the said bill of sale of the said horse to the said Coates.

"4. That it was agreed and understood by and between said parties that the title to said horse should not vest in the said Coates until the delivery to him of the said bill of sale in the manner hereinbefore set forth.

“5. That upon the completion of the said contract, in the month of May, 1876, aforesaid, the said plaintiff, under the terms of said contract, delivered the said horse into the possession of the said Coates.

Lambert v. McCloud

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief