William Strong

Name: Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court
Author: William Strong

Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by William Strong. It explores elements such as Chariton County, payment and vendors.

Quotes from Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court (William Strong)

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ It is quite unmeaning for parties to a contract to say it shall not amount to a sale, when it contains every element of a sale, and transmission of ownership. This part of the contract is to be construed in connection with the other provisions, so that if possible, or so far as is possible, they all may harmonize. Thus construed, it is quite plain these stipulations were inserted to enable the manufacturing company to enforce payment, not of any rent or hire, but of the selling price of the cars for which the company took the notes of the railroad company. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ Notwithstanding the efforts to cover up the real nature of the contract, its substance was an hypothecation of the cars to secure a debt due to the vendors for the price of a sale. The railroad company was not accorded an option to buy or not. They were bound to pay the price, either by paying their notes or surrendering the property to be sold in order to make payment. This was in no sense a conditional sale. This giving the property as a security for the payment of a debt is the very essence of a mortgage which has no existence in a case of conditional sale. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ On the contrary, it was stipulated expressly that if the manufacturing company should elect to take the cars into their own possession, which they reserved the right to do in case of default of payment of the notes, the property should be sold, and of the net amount realized from the sale, so much as should be needed to make the amount remaining due and unpaid on the promissory notes, with the interest that might have accrued thereon, should be retained by the manufacturing company, and the surplus, if any, should be paid over to the railroad company. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ The statute of the State of Missouri enacts that 'no mortgage or deed of trust of personal property shall be valid against any other person than the parties thereto, unless possession of the mortgaged or trust property be delivered to and retained by the mortgagee or cestui que trust, or unless the mortgage or deed of trust be acknowledged or proved and recorded in the county in which the mortgagor or grantor resides, in such manner as conveyances of land are, by law, directed to be acknowledged or proved and recorded.' 1 Wagn. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ It is the legal effect of the whole which is to be sought for. The form of the instrument is of little account.
Though the contract industriously and repeatedly spoke of loaning the cars to the railroad company for hire, for four months, and delivering them for use for hire, it is manifest that no mere bailment for hire was intended. No price for the hire was mentioned or alluded to, and in every bailment or letting for hire a price or compensation for the hire is essential. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ In Illinois, it is held that where the vendor of personal property delivers possession to the purchaser under an agreement that the property is to be considered as belonging to the vendor until the payment of the purchase-money, notwithstanding such delivery of possession, such agreement as to the creditors of the purchaser is fraudulent and void. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ The said party of the first part hereby agrees to loan to the said party of the second part, for hire, the said passenger, and mail, baggage, and express cars for the space of four months from the date of this agreement, to be used on said railway, and to deliver the same to the party of the second part at Wilmington, Delaware, to be transported to the said railway company at Salisbury, Missouri, at the expense and risk of the party of the second part, to be used on the said railway for hire as aforesaid, and not elsewhere, without the written consent of the party of the first part. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Strong, Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

“ Lewis (supra) , the notes for the purchasemoney were all overdue eighteen months, and the property was still in the possession of the vendee. This was not laches. In the present case the notes were overdue only eight months. ”

William Strong

Summary

Quotes from Heryford v. Davis — Opinion of the Court (William Strong)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature