Kohler v. Hayes
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Passow v. Emery (Utah 1910)
- Perkins v. Mettler (Cal. 1899)
- Van Allen v. Francis (Cal. 1899)
- State v. Nicholas (S.D. 1934)
- People v. Dye (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- Bailly v. Loock (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
- Bice v. Harold L. Arnold, Incorporated (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
- Greene v. Carmichael (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
- People v. Loper (Cal. 1910)
- Liver v. Mills (Cal. 1909)
- Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. Hargrove (Cal. 1900)
- Charles Lippincott & Co. v. Rich (Utah 1899)
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co. (Cal. 1894)
- Lowe v. Woods (Cal. 1893)
- Gilman Linseed Oil Co. v. Norton (Iowa 1893)
- Palmer v. Howard (Cal. 1887)
- Chase v. Whitmore (Cal. 1886)
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Graham (Or. 1879)
- Truman v. Hardin (United States District Court for the District of California 1878)
- Sanders v. Keber & Miller (Ohio 1876)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It appears, from the agreed statement of facts, that the plaintiff delivered to Dowling a piano under the following agreement:
“ Received from Andrew Kohler, on rent, a certain pianoforte, which I agree to return in good order, and to be responsible for the value thereof, the same being of the value of five hundred dollars; and for the use of which I agree to pay said Andrew Kohler, or to his order, the monthly rent of thirty-five dollars or forty dollars, strictly in advance. * * * This piano and stool to be sold for four hundred and eighty-five dollars, on the following terms: Forty dollars to be paid each month till the above sum is paid, when a bill of sale will be given; interest at one per cent per month, to be paid on the amount unpaid after ninety days.
“Richard Dowling.”
It also appears that “ Dowling never paid the plaintiff’ upon or under said agreement, or in any way, any money, except the sum of one hundred dollars, which sum of one hundred dollars said plaintiff received thereon.” But it does not appear whether that sum was paid as rent, or as a part of the purchase money. The question for solution is whether that instrument is evidence of an absolute sale of the piano. If the agreement fell short of an absolute sale, Dowling had not the capacity to transfer the title to the
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.