252 S.W. 1116 | Tex. App. | 1923
The supply pipes were a necessary part of the toilets, the subject of the contract between the parties, and were included in the general description of the contract. The contract was not fulfilled without the delivery of such pipes. 35 Cyc. p. 100; note, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 793.
We think the evidence shows that the title to the property passed to the purchaser on delivery thereof to the warehouseman. Irvin v. Edwards,
The risk goes with the title in the absence of contract to the contrary. Alsworth v. Reppert (Tex.Civ.App.)
The judgment for appellee will be reduced in the sum of $48, and affirmed.