Drake v. Scott

Decided November 15, 1902

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1902-11-15

Tried before the Hon. B. 0. Jones. This Avas an action of detinue brought by the appellee, Mrs. Mattie Scott, against the appellant, M. E. Drake, to recoA'er certain specifically described property. The cause Avas tried on the plea of the general issue.

Relies on Shines v. Steiner · Harmon v. Goetter, Weil & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1954

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARALSON, J.

¶1“Where there is a sale of goods, to be paid for in cash on delivery, payment and delivery are concurrent acts. In such case, payment is a condition precedent to passing title to the vendee. If delivery is made without demanding payment, or under circumstances showing no expectation of immediate payment, the condition is waived, and the title passes; but, if the goods are put into the possession of the buyer, on the understanding or agreement that he will pay for them immediately, and he fails 'or refuses to do so, the seller may recover the goods.” — Shines v. Steiner, 76 Ala. 458; Harmon v. Goetter, 87 Ala. 325; Benjamin on Sales, (6th ed.), §§ 1, 320, and n. 4, p. 298.

¶2The facts in this case show, without conflict, that the contract for the sale of the chattels sued for, to the defendant by the plaintiff, was for cash to be paid on de-liverv, the payment being a condition precedent to passing the title to defendant.

¶3Affirmed.