244 N.W. 556 | Minn. | 1932
Defendants were copartners who, January 16, 1930, contracted with plaintiff for the purchase of 400 calendars, upon which, according to the contract, certain indicated advertising of defendants and their business was to be printed. After that printing was done, but before delivery of the calendars "f. o. b. cars, St. Paul," as the contract required, defendants attempted to repudiate. Their one defense *144 now is that while they might be liable for damages for breach of contract they are not so for the contract price, their assertion being that when repudiated the contract was wholly executory, that the goods had not been appropriated to the contract, and so title had not passed.
1. Defendants' law is good (Sherman Nursery Co. v. Aughenbaugh,
There are many cases (for example, Presley Fruit Co. v. St. L. I. M. S. Ry. Co.
2. The property passes when the parties intend that it shall pass. G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 8394 (uniform sales act, § 19), enunciates certain rules for determining the intention of the parties, "unless a different intention appears." Here the parties could not have intended otherwise than that the property should pass not later than the moment when the calendars had put upon them the name and advertising matter of defendants, for thereafter they would be of no further use to plaintiff or anybody other than defendants.
Possibly it should be added by way of explanation that defendants attempted to cancel because of the sale of their business. Plaintiff offered to add to the printing matter on the calendars the name of the purchaser, that he was successor to defendants, and to do the work at cost. That certainly was fair enough, but defendants declined the offer.
Judgment affirmed.