Ketchum v. Watson
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works (Supreme Court of the United States 1877)
- Swern v. Liggett (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1931)
- Graver Bartlett Nash Co. v. Krans (Ill. App. Ct. 1925)
- Arnold v. Chandler Motors of R. I., Inc. (R.I. 1924)
- In re George M. Hill Co. (7th Cir. 1903)
- Gilbert v. Forest City Furniture Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1897)
- Weber v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. (Colo. App. 1892)
- Weber v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. (Colo. App. 1892)
- Lapp v. Pinover (Ill. App. Ct. 1888)
- Redewill v. Gillen (N.M. 1887)
- Bastress v. Chickering (Ill. App. Ct. 1886)
- Shove v. Farwell (Ill. App. Ct. 1881)
- McCormick v. Hadden (Ill. 1865)
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
The sale to Outlaw, of the horse in question, made in August, 1859, was perfected by delivery to him. His title was then complete. The resale by Outlaw to Watson, in October following, was not perfected by delivery, nor was there any change of possession; the title, therefore, did not pass. To pass the title as between third persons, there must be a change of possession, so that others may not be deceived and defrauded by the appearance of ownership in one, while the title is really in another. Thompson v. Yeck, 21 Ill. R. 78. The whole transaction is in fraud of the chattel mortgage act. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.