Story Case

Arthur Hassel, of Paris, Illinois, owned a fine Per-cheron which he agreed to sell to the Armour Packing Company for $600. Charles Lemmel, buyer for Armour Company, made this agreement with Mr. Hassel after banking hours Saturday afternoon. As Mr. Hassel was unwilling to allow the animal to be removed, until cash payment was made, Mr. Lemmel, not having $600 in cash, paid $500 down, promising that he would return Monday morning after the bank opened, pay the remainder, and take the animal away. On Sunday afternoon the horse was killed by a bolt of lightning. Mr. Lemmel, the Armour Company's buyer, telephoned to Mr. Hassel, commented on the unfortunate circumstances and asked Mr. Hassel to forward the $500 direct to the Armour Company, at Chicago. Mr. Hassel protested, saying that the horse was sold to Mr. Lemmel on Saturday night, and that $100 was due him. Whose horse was killed?

Ruling Court Case. Sedgwick Vs. Cottingham, Volume 54 Iowa Reports, Page 512

Sedgwick, who resided in Portlandville, Iowa, was engaged in the purchase and sale of grain. Cottingham was engaged in milling at Benton, Wisconsin. Sedgwick and Cottingham made an agreement whereby the former was to ship a car load of wheat to the latter, to be delivered at Council Hill, from whence it was to be hauled by Cottingham to his mill. In pursuance of the terms of the contract, the car of wheat was placed on siding at Council Hill, and Cottingham was notified by the railroad company of its arrival. A day and a half later, before Cottingham could get it unloaded, the car containing the wheat was washed from the side track by an unusual and extraordinary freshet and the wheat was lost. Sedgwick sues for the price of the wheat. Cottingham contends that the loss was not his.

Mr. Justice Seevers delivered the opinion of the Court: "When the car containing the wheat was placed on the siding at Council Hill, Sedgwick's duties in respect thereto were over. Title to the wheat then passed to Cottingham. Title having passed, the wheat was then at the risk of Cottingham, loss occurring he, as owner, must bear it." Judgment was given for Sedgwick.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It is always important to know who has the title to personal property, in order to determine who shall stand the loss or gain in respect thereto. If the property increases in value, that increase enures to the benefit of the holder of the title; if the property is damaged or entirely lost, the loss or damage must be borne by the owner of the title.

In the Story Case, the question is, who owned the horse when it was killed? To determine this, we must discover the intent of the contracting parties, as expressed in their agreement. The contract shows that Hassel had completed his part of the contract, and, therefore, title passed to Armour & Company, although it was agreed that Hassel should not surrender the horse until the following Monday. Mr. Hassel possessed a mere lien on the percheron for the $100 due on the purchase price. Therefore, the loss must be suffered by Armour & Company. It should be remembered that this is based upon presumption as to passing of title, since the parties have not expressed themselves on this point. It is always possible for the parties expressly to stipulate when title should pass.