MacLeod v. Aberdeen Brewing Co.

Citations

• 82 Wash. 74
• 143 P. 440
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1468

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Contracts—Title—When Passes — Intention — Evidence —Sufficiency. The evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of a jury that it was the intention of the parties to a settlement that the title to a saloon, sold as one of the items of the settlement, was not to pass to the vendee until a bill of sale therefor was delivered, where it appears that the vendor was a corporation and its representatives at the settlement stated that the action taken would have to be ratified by the directors, that the saloon in question listed to the vendee had been previously sold under a conditional sales contract for $5,000, $1,500 of which had been paid, that the notes for the balance of the conditional sales price had been negotiated at a bank as collateral for a loan, that the saloon continued to remain in the possession of the same parties who continued to pay rent and interest on the purchase price to the company, and the notes remained in the possession of the bank as collateral, and there was evidence that the relations between the vendor and the vendee in the conditional sale continued to remain the same, and other facts and circumstances tended to show that the intent was to pass title by a bill of sale, which was not tendered until after the property had been destroyed by fire.</p> <p>Sales — Conditional Sales — When Title Passes — Negotiation of Purchase Money Notes. Where notes, given for the purchase price of property under a conditional sales contract, were thereafter negotiated to a bank as collateral security, the title thereby passes to the vendee in the conditional sales contract.</p> <p>Appeal — Review — Harmless Error — Instructions. Error cannot be predicated upon an instruction upon an immaterial matter, where the jury could not have been misled thereby.</p> <p>Damages — Excessive Verdict. Where a new trial was granted, and the second verdict merely added interest to the amount of the first, the second verdict is not excessive, where the evidence sus