Bailey v. Harris, 8 Iowa 331

Bailey v. Harris

8 Iowa 331 | Iowa | 1859

Lead Opinion

Stockton, J.*-

-By the terms of the agreement with Bailey, Kingsley had no right of property in the blacksmith’s tools, until the payment of the note left with Clark. This note not being paid, according to agreement, Kingsley could pass no valid title in the tools to the defendant, and the plaintiff might resume the possession of the property at his option. 1 Parsons on Contracts, 449 and 441.

In Sargent v. Gile, 8 N. H., 325, furniture was delivered to one Wilson, upon a contract that he should keep it six months, and if within that time, he should pay for it, he *333was to have it at cost, but otherwise, he was to pay twenty-five per centum upon the cost, for the use of it. Wilson sold and delivered the furniture to the defendant, who knew nothing of the contract upon which Wilson received it. It was held by the court, that as there was an express stipulation that the property should not be Wilson’s, until the price was paid, he could not be regarded as a purchaser, and no property passed to him ; and that the contract by which he gained the right to purchase, gave him no right to sell, and the goods still remained the property of the plaintiff. See, also, Copland v. Bosquet, 4 Wash. C. C., 594; Porter v. Pettingill, 12 N. H., 299; Gambling v. Read, 1 Meigs, 281; Bigelow v. Huntley, 8 Verm., 151; Barrett v. Pritchard, 2 Pick., 512. In New York, it has been held, that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of the conditional sale, will be entitled to hold the property. Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 Johns. Ch., 437 ; Keeler v. Field, 1 Paige, 315 ; Smith v. Lyons, 1 Selden, 41. Upon an examination of the authorities, however, we are satisfied with the ruling in Sargent v. Gile, and hold accordingly that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Judgment reversed.

Weight, C. J., dissenting.

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, C. J.,

dissenting. — In this case, the delivery of the personal property was complete to Kingsley. Harris purchased in good faith, without notice, actual or constructive, of the right reserved by Bailey — or that the sale made was conditional. In my opinion, while the parties to such a sale, should be, and are bound by its terms, and as between them the title remains in the vendor, as to. subsequent purchasers and existing creditors, without notice, acting in good faith, and purchasing for a valuable consideration, the title is in the vendee. I think the rule as found in the New York cases, is a safe one, and much more in accordance with the letter and spirit of our registry laws, than that adopted by the majority of the court. The point of difference is well understood, and therefore I need not now say more.