Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

KUENZLE & STREIFF v Macke except by delivery of the property itself; and that a sale without delivery gives

y delivery of the property itself; and that a sale without delivery gives the would-
be purchaser no rights in those property except those of a creditor
1909 | Moreland J|
-The bill of sale in this case was a bill of sale of personal property. A bill of sale of personal
Doctrine: The ownership of personal property cannot be transferred to the property, executed in a private document and unrecorded, which property described there
prejudice of third persons except by delivery of the property itself. was not delivered and remained in possession of the vendor, could have no effect against
- A sale without delivery gives the would-be purchaser no rights in said property a person dealing with the property upon the faith of appearances.
except those of a creditor. -Kuenzle cites a case (Kuenzle v. AS Watson) which the SC did not find to be applicable.
- Where there is no express provision that the title shall not pass until payment of -That was a case of the sale of property upon the condition that the title should remain in
the price, and the thing sold has been delivered, title passes from the moment the the vendor until the purchase price should be fully paid
thing sold is placed in the possession and control of the buyer. In spite of -And that in case of non-payment of the debt or any instalment, the vendor would have a
the reciprocal nature of a sale, it is not the prior payment of price that determines rights to take possession of the property and deal with it as provided for in the contract
the effects of delivery of the subject matter. -That case was inapplicable because:
Facts: -In that case, the Court held that such a contract for the conditional sale of goods was valid
Petitioner: also as to third persons, provided possession of the property was taken by the vendor
-January, 1907, he was the owner of the Oregon Saloon in Cavite, consisting of bar, before the rights of third persons intervened against the same
furniture, furnishings, and fixtures, of the value of 1,000 pesos; -In this case, the bill of sale was not a conditional sale of property so the principles in
- the defendant Jose Desiderio, as sheriff, levied upon such property by virtue of an Kuenzle v. AS Watson are inapplicable.
execution issued upon a judgment secured by the defendant Macke & Chandler, against -Chandler purchased the property at an execution sale. And so , Chandler obtained a good
Stanley & Krippendorf; title to the property as against Kuenzle
-that said plaintiff notified the sheriff, in the manner provided by law, that it was the owner
and forbade the sale under said execution; Dispositive
-that, notwithstanding such claim upon the part of the plaintiff, the said sheriff sold said The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
goods under said execution; that said firm of Macke & Chandler was the purchaser of said So ordered.
goods and the same were delivered to it; that the defendants Bachrach, Elser, and Gale,
were the sureties upon the bond given to the sheriff by Macke & Chandler before said goods Notes
were sold. Insert notes
-the property described by the plaintiff and sold at the execution sale referred to was not
the property of the plaintiff at the time of said levy and sale, but was the property of Stanley
& Krippendorf, who were in possession of the same at the time of such levy.
-sale between Stanley & Krippendorf and plaintiff was never recorded because it was in a
private document
-property remained from the time of said sale forward in the exclusive possession and
control of said Stanley & Krippendorf, and that they conducted the business subsequent to
the execution of said instrument exactly as they had prior thereto — in their own
name — purchasing goods and paying therefor without reference to the plaintiff in this

What is the effect of the instrument of sale with regards to transferring property from
Krippendorf to Kuenzle?

Held: Chandler was able to obtain a good title (this was the Court’s answer. So I guess the
transaction between Krippendor & Kuenzle was incomplete

-SC cites the case of Fidelity & Deposit Company v. Wilson which laid down a doctrine that
ownership of personal property cannot be transferred to the prejudice of third persons