John Deere Plow Co. v. McDavid
Citations
- 137 F. 802
- 70 C.C.A. 422
- 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4205
Syllabus
<p>1. Contracts—Construction—Conditional Sales—Agency.</p> <p>Claimant contracted to consign goods to a bankrupt according to schedules and certain requests of the bankrupt, which agreed to pay transportation charges, furnish warehouse room, pay taxes, licenses, and rents, keep the goods insured, and be personally liable for any damage to goods while in its custody, to make all reasonable efforts to sell the goods, not to sell other makes to the exclusion of goods consigned under thé contract, and to sell for enough more than the net schedule prices to pay freight, taxes, expenses, charges, and commission for handling and selling the goods, which should be the difference between the net amounts and the gross amounts received from the sales. The contract expressly provided as to what warranties should be given, and entitled claimant to require the goods to be returned. The bankrupt ordered goods under this contract, agreeing to pay therefor in par funds or give notes, and agreed that the title and ownership of all goods should remain in the claimant, which should be subject to its order until paid for. Held, that the contract was one of agency, and not a contract of conditional sale.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 43, Cent. Dig. Sales, § 1335.]</p> <p>2. Same—Preferred Claims—Trust Funds.</p> <p>Where a bankrupt improperly mingled funds belonging to its principal with its own funds, and it was not shown that the trust funds, either in their original or a substituted form, came into the hands of the bankrupt’s trustee, the principal was not entitled to a preference therefor.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 6, Cent. Dig. Bankruptcy, § 539.]</p> <p>3. Federal Courts—Rule of Decision.</p> <p>Whether a creditor of a bankrupt is entitled to a preference on the ground that the claim is based on the bankrupt’s misappropriation of a trust fund, does not depend on- the construction of the contract between the parties, but on a rule of preference
Judges: Riner
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In re Columbus Buggy Co.Eighth Circuit· 1906-03-02· cited 51×
- Mound Mines Co. v. HawthorneEighth Circuit· 1909-09-15· cited 28×
- Elliott v. BumbNinth Circuit· 1966-03-22· cited 19×
- Salem v. Lawrence Lynch Corp. (In Re Farrell & Howard Auctioneers, Inc.)D. Massachusetts· 1994-10-13· cited 19×
- Crenshaw v. AllenNinth Circuit· 1912-05-06· cited 18×
- John Deere Plow Co. v. MowrySixth Circuit· 1915-05-04· cited 18×
- County of Orange v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In Re County of Orange)C.D. California· 1996-01-24· cited 15×
- Wilson-Moline Buggy Co. v. PriebeMissouri Court of Appeals· 1907-02-04· cited 14×
- Mitchell Wagon Co. v. PooleSixth Circuit· 1916-10-06· cited 13×
- Franklin v. Stoughton Wagon Co.Eighth Circuit· 1909-03-26· cited 12×
- In Re Tate-Jones & Co.W.D. Pennsylvania· 1949-07-29· cited 11×
- General Electric Co. v. BrowerNinth Circuit· 1915-02-08· cited 11×
- Osborn v. Ketcham & Rothschild, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1931-11-09· cited 9×
- In Re Bell Motor Co.Eighth Circuit· 1930-11-14· cited 7×
- In re ThomasS.D. Georgia· 1916-03-20· cited 7×
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. National Hollow Brake Beam Co.N.D. Illinois· 1913-11-04· cited 6×
- In re ReynoldsE.D. Kentucky· 1912-12-15· cited 5×
- Strauss Bros. v. Wisconsin Trust Co.Seventh Circuit· 1916-01-04· cited 5×
- In re Renfro-WadensteinW.D. Washington· 1931-02-05· cited 4×
- In re KearneyE.D. Pennsylvania· 1909-02-19· cited 4×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hewit v. Berlin MacHine WorksSupreme Court· 1904-05-16· cited 199×
- Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court· 1875-11-15· cited 162×
- Little v. ChadwickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1890-02-26· cited 71×
- Spokane County v. First Nat. Bank of SpokaneNinth Circuit· 1895-06-24· cited 57×
- Hunt v. WymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1868-10-15· cited 53×
- City Bank of Hopkinsville v. BlackmoreSixth Circuit· 1896-07-08· cited 50×
- Beard v. Independent Dist. of Pella CityEighth Circuit· 1898-07-02· cited 46×
- Dodge v. NorlinEighth Circuit· 1904-11-11· cited 40×
- In re GaltSeventh Circuit· 1903-01-06· cited 35×
- Boone County Nat. Bank v. LatimerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri· 1895-03-21· cited 23×
- Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Campbell Commission Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri· 1896-12-12· cited 16×
- Weir Plow Co. v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri· 1884-04-15· cited 14×
- Montagu v. Pacific BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1897-06-24· cited 13×
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.