Lee v. Strickland

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The agreement in this case recites a sale of reaping and mowing machines. But it is provided that the payments of the purchase money are to he made in the notes of responsible farmers, to whom the said machines should be afterwards sold. The defendant was required to guarantee the payment of the notes; and it was also agreed that if any of' these notes should remain unpaid for a period of three months after they became due, the plaintiff might, if he desired to do so, require the defendant to redeem them with other like notes, not having more than three months to run before maturity, or to give him 'the defendant’s own notes at not more than three months.

The parties chose to designate the transaction between them as a sale; but their rights and obligations must be determined by the stipulations whicn they have made in their written agreement. The instrument is rather a long one, and contains many provisions, which are entirely inconsistent with the idea that the defendant had acquired the ownership of the mowers and reapers mentioned in it. It is evident on a consideration of the whole paper, that the intention of the parties was, that the defendant was to sell these machines for the plaintiff on commission, and was to guarantee the sales which he should make; but that he was not to . pay for such as he should not sell. It was stipulated that the agreement should be in full force until the first day of August, 1815, and that, if at that time all its provisions had been complied with, by both parties, it should cease, and be of no further effect.

The declaration contains four counts. In the first count, it is sufficiently averred that the defendant sold one of these machines to Richard Thomas, and guaranteed the ¹⁶⁰ note which he received from Thomas; and that said note remained