Story Case

James Ferris left an Indian motorcycle with the Flying Merkel Repair Company to be overhauled and repaired. The following day John Adams instituted an action against the Flying Merkel Company to recover $200 for rent of the building which the company occupied, and levied an attachment on the Flying Merkel shop, causing the shop to be closed and locked. Ferris notified the constable that his motorcycle was in the shop, and he desired to remove it. The constable asked Adams what he desired to do about the matter, and Adams said," Tell Ferris that I intend to get my money out of that place, and that if he has any property in the shop, that is a matter for him to settle with the Flying Merkel people." Did Adams understand his legal rights in the matter?

Ruling Court Case. Foster Vs. Pettibone, Volume 7, New York Reports, Page 433

Brown entered into a contract with Foster, who was a miller, in reference to the grinding of some wheat into flour. Brown was to deliver 30,000 bushels to Foster, 15,000 bushels to be ground in season and to be shipped east in that fall, and 15,000 in the winter. Foster agreed to deliver to Brown one bushel of superfine flour for each five bushels of wheat so delivered. The flour had been manufactured, and was shipped by-Foster by boat in accordance with the terms of the contract. The ship, however, was frozen in at Montezuma, and the cargo stored with one Baker. Now, Brown came in and claimed the flour as his own. Baker refused to release the cargo. Brown then sued out a writ of replevin. Pettibone, the sheriff by virtue of this writ, seized the flour. Foster now sues Pettibone, the sheriff, for illegally seizing this flour.

It was contended by Foster that the transaction between himself and Brown was a sale, and, therefore, title to this flour was not transferred until the flour had been delivered. If this be so, obviously Pettibone had no right to take the flour from Baker.

Mr. Chief Justice Ruggles said: "This controversy arises upon a contract in relation to wheat, between a merchant and miller, and it is one of the many cases concerning the same subject matter, in which it is somewhat difficult to determine whether the parties intended to make a contract of sale or of bailment. The distinction between a bailment and a sale is correctly laid down by Bronson, Chief Justice, in Mallory vs. Willis, Volume 4, New York, Page 85, in these words:

'When the identical thing delivered, although in an altered form, is to be restored, the contract is one of bailment, and the title to the property is not changed; but when there is no obligation to restore the specific article, and the receiver is at liberty to return another thing of equal value, he becomes a debtor to make the return, and the title of the property is changed; it is a sale."

The court was of the opinion that the facts here constituted only a bailment, since the identical property should be returned; title to the flour remained in Brown, and Pettibone was justified in taking the flour from Baker. Judgment was given for Pettibone.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

A sale is distinguished from a bailment in this, that the bailor, the one who bails the property, passes possession to the bailee only for some specified purpose; whereas, the seller passes absolutely the ownership of the property, to the buyer. The bailor, of course, will be entitled to regain possession when the purpose of the bailment has been fulfilled; whereas the seller, having released all ownership in the property, is not entitled, thereafter, to possession of the property. A bailment may be made for the purpose of safe keeping of property, or it may be made for the purpose of having the property repaired or altered. In any case, the bailor is entitled to repossess himself of the property when the bailment terminates.

The motorcycle, in the Story Case, was left by Ferris in the care of the Flying Merkel Company to be repaired and returned. The title to the motorcycle remained in Ferris, and Adams did not understand his legal rights when he said that Ferris would be obliged to depend upon the Flying Merkel people for relief, for Adams was opening himself to liability, for attaching property to which the Flying Merkel Company had no title, but of which they were merely bailees.