case comes within rule in Tennessee

1983The general rule expressed in the early case of Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616 (1868), is where the description can only be applied to some existing tract of land, parol evidence may be employed to show the location of the tract.

1981Plaintiffs first cite West Park Shopping Center, Inc. v. Masheter, 6 Ohio St.2d 142 , 35 Ohio Ops.2d 216, 216 N.E.2d 761 (1966).

1981Plaintiffs first cite West Park Shopping Center, Inc. v. Masheter, 6 Ohio St.2d 142 , 35 Ohio Ops.2d 216, 216 N.E.2d 761 (1966).

1965The Supreme Court of Maryland in Scott v. White, 190 Md. 389 , 58 A.2d 490 , made this very apt statement with reference to a factual situation such as the bill herein sets forth.

1965The Supreme Court of Maryland in Scott v. White, 190 Md. 389 , 58 A.2d 490 , made this very apt statement with reference to a factual situation such as the bill herein sets forth.

1965Under the factual situation here clearly this man should be liable for the damages that he has caused, because under these allegations there is really mutuality of contract in that he agreed and did sign himself and agreed to have the other person sign the contract so that he makes himself liable for what damages he has caused. *25 We think under the factual situation as alleged in this bill that this case comes within the rule as set forth in 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, sec. 562, page 955, thus: ‘ ‘ The rule that the purchaser cannot recover for the loss of his bargain where the vendor

1965Under the factual situation here clearly this man should be liable for the damages that he has caused, because under these allegations there is really mutuality of contract in that he agreed and did sign himself and agreed to have the other person sign the contract so that he makes himself liable for what damages he has caused. *25 We think under the factual situation as alleged in this bill that this case comes within the rule as set forth in 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, sec. 562, page 955, thus: ‘ ‘ The rule that the purchaser cannot recover for the loss of his bargain where the vendor

1964Some of the cases so holding are Rhea v. Edwards (U.S.Dist.Ct., Tenn., opinion by Judge Davies, 1955 (involving our Habitual Criminal Act, now T.C.A. secs. 40-2801, 40-2804)), 136 F.Supp. 671 , aff’d sub nom.

1933We think this case comes within the rule as announced by the Supreme Court in Murray v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp., 160 Tenn., 140 , 22 S. W. (2d), 227 , 23 S. W. (2d), 913 , wherein it was specifically held that, where the conditional vendor procures possession of the property other than by process of law or by agreement of the parties, that the conditional vendor becomes the bailee and holds the property as bailee.

1933We think this case comes within the rule as announced by the Supreme Court in Murray v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp., 160 Tenn., 140 , 22 S. W. (2d), 227 , 23 S. W. (2d), 913 , wherein it was specifically held that, where the conditional vendor procures possession of the property other than by process of law or by agreement of the parties, that the conditional vendor becomes the bailee and holds the property as bailee.

1932We think that the case comes within the rule of Newsum v. Hoffman, 124 Tenn., 369 , 137 S. W., 490 , wherein it was held that under the doctrine of comity, where a chattel mortgage was executed in a foreign state and brought to this State, without the knowledge or consent of the mortgagee, the rights of the latter were superior to a levying or attaching creditor, or an innocent purchaser from the 'mortgagor in the state to which the property was removed.

1906The term ‘merchant’ as used in this act, includes all persons, copartnerships, or corporations engaged in trading or dealing in any kind of goods, wares, or merchandise, either on land or in steamboats, wharf boats, or other craft stationed or plying in the waters of this State, and confectioners, whether such goods, wares, or merchandise be kept on band for sale, or the same be purchased and delivered for profit as ordered.” We are of opinion that upon the facts stated this case comes within the principle of American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 110 Tenn., 524 , 75 S. W., 1037 , 100 Am.