Simmons Hardware Co. v. Mullen
Simmons Hardware Company v. Aaron J. Mullen
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Gilfillan, C. J.
The agreement for the sale of the goods by plaintiff to Whiteher, the price exceeding $50, and there being no memorandum in writing, and no part of the purchase-money being paid, was void under the statute of frauds, unless there was not only a delivery by the vendor, but an acceptance on the part of the purchaser. The authorities are substantially uniform that delivery by the seller *196 to a carrier selected by him, for the purpose of transportation, is not of itself an acceptance to take the case out of the operation of the statute. Norman v. Phillips, 14 M. & W. 277; Hanson v. Armitage, 5 Barn. & Ald. 557; Maxwell v. Brown, 39 Me. 98 ; Johnson v. Cuttle, 105 Mass. 447 ; Grimes v. Van Vechten, 20 Mich. 410 ; Allard v. Greasert, 61 N. Y. 1 ; Keiwert v. Meyer, 62 Ind. 587 ; Taylor v. Mueller, 30 Minn. 343 .
The plaintiff in this instance selected the carrier. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider what would have been the effect, in respect to taking the case out of the statute, of delivery to a carrier designated by the purchaser. Whitcher not having done any act of acceptance, the goods still belonged to the plaintiff, and could not have been levied on as Whitcher’s.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.