Skip to main content
· 1/6/1903

In re Galt

Citations

  • 120 F. 64
  • 56 C.C.A. 470
  • 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4460

Syllabus

<p>1. Bailments — Construction of Contract — Bailment or Conditional Sale.</p> <p>Whether a contract by which one party agrees to send to the other goods to be sold by him constitutes a bailment or a conditional sale depends on whether the sender has the right to compel a return of the thing sent, or whether the receiver has the option to pay for the same in money.</p> <p>2. Same — Contract Construed.</p> <p>A manufacturing corporation entered into a contract by which it appointed a man its agent for the sale of its wagons at a place named. It agreed to furnish him with wagons at certain discounts from the list prices; the wagons to be sold by him, and accounted for as sold in cash or purchasers notes. All notes taken were to be indorsed by the agent and sent to the company, and, in case they should be for a greater amount than the price of the wagons to be accounted for, the “surplus of commission” contained therein was to be paid to the agent when and in proportion to the amount collected. All wagons not sold within 12 months were, at the option of the company, to be.paid for by the other party in cash or by note, or to be turned over to the company. The contract further provided that the ownership of all wagons, or their proceeds, should remain in the company until settlement should be made therefor, and that the money and effects received in the course of the business of the agency should “in no case or under any eircum-' stances be appropriated to the private use of the party of the second part.” It also provided that the company might revoke the appointment at its pleasure, and at any time take possession of all or any part of the property. UeU, that such contract was one of bailment, and not of conditional sale, and that on the bankruptcy of the agent the company was entitled to reclaim the goods remaining in his possession.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Clearly, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel prior to Defendants’ deadline for responding to the discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is premature.”
  • “Based on a review of the record, Plaintiff failed to file a certification in compliance with Rule 37. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Document No. 32.) is DENIED.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jenkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.