THE PURCHASE BY INSTAL MENT SYSTEM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2687, 17 November 1882, Page 3

THE PURCHASE BY INSTAL MENT SYSTEM.

Hobbs v Patterson. In this case, one of considerable importance to the vendors of sewing machines, &c., Mr Ollivier gave judgment this morning at the Resident Magistrate’s Court as follows : In this case Frederick Hobbs is the plaintiff and Patrick' Patterson defendant. The plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of £7 10s from the defendant for the conversion to his own use of a certain sewing machine. The machine in question is stated to have been sold to a Mrs Barrett by the plaintiff under a memorandum of agreement made on the 4th day of August, 1831, by which the said Barrett, after paying a deposit of 30s, covenanted and agreed to pay a further sum of 20s per month, for a period of six consecutive months, the last of which should have been made on the 4th day of i ebruary, 1882, at which time, had the payments been duly made, it became her absolute property. A condition is inserted in this agreement that the machine should not bo removed from the promises at Lincoln, where it was delivered, without the written permission of the vendor, and, in case of its removal without such permission, the agreement ceased and determined. The ease of Cooper v Willamott, to which I am referred, does not, in my opinion, apply. In that the chattels were secured by a bill of sale, and there can be very little doubt that property so.protected could be claimed even of a bona fide purchaser, and it is now contended that the vendor, not being the owner and having no authority from the owner to sell, the purchaser has no title to the property he has bought against the true owner. In this case I am of opinion that

the agreement is of no value in the creation of title opposed to a bona fide purchaser. Where, by such an agreement, the period of payment is fixed, the debtor is in default a,s soon as it has expired, and the property reverts to the owner. It appears that no payments after the original deposit have been made; that the machine has been removed from Lincoln to Knightstown without the sanction of Mr Hobbs ; and that it was subsequently sent by Mrs Barrett and her husband by the hands of Carlyle, a licensed carrier, to the auction rooms of Messrs Beauchamp and Bell, and placed there in his name for sale. It was brought there by a customer in the ordinary way of trade; it was duly advertised and exposed for sale, and ultimately sold by public auction to the defendant, and thus the right of property was altered, and the real owner became debarred from following the subioot matter of the sale. Beyond doubt, the‘Barretts have been guilty of conversion, and Mr Hobbs’ remedy is against them. Chief Justice Jervis, in a nearly analogous case. White v Garden, said. It would be a most inconvenient and absurd doctrine to contend that goods tainted hy fraud might be followed through any number of bona fide purchasers, for a vendor who does not choose to avail himself of means oi inquiry would thus, by trusting the vendee, be giving unlimited moans of defrauding the restof the world,’ * and Justice Cress well, in the same case, added: —“Oiie of two innocent parties must"suffer, and surely it is more just that the burthen should fall on those who are guilty of negligence in parting with their goods upon the faith of a piece of paper, which, after a little enquiry, may have been shown to be worthless.” Agreements of this’nature should undoubtedly be registered to have legal value. In the present instance I look upon it as void by negligence, and of no eifect as against the bona fide purchaser, and therefore the verdict will be for the defendant, with costs. . Mr Weston, who appeared for plaintiu, obtained leave to appeal.