You are on page 1of 1

d2015member Kuenzle & Streiff v.

Macke & Chandler (1909) Plaintiff-appellant: Kuenzle & Streiff Defendant-appellees: Mack & Chandler Ponente: Moreland, J. Doctrine: Ownership of personal property cannot be transferred to the prejudice of third persons except by 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. A bill of sale of personal property, executed in a private document and unrecorded, which property described there was not delivered and remained in possession of the vendor, c ould have no effect against a person dealing with the property upon the faith of appearances. Short version: A Sheriff levied on a property based on a case of Chandler v. Krippendorf. Chandler won. Kuenzle says the property is his while Chandler, who was the one who bought the property from the auction, insists that the property is Krippendorfs. Apparently, Krippendorf sold the property to Kuenzle but never delivered it. SC says Chandler has a good title to the lounge because a bill of sale of personal property, executed in a private document and unrecorded, which property described there was not delivered and remained in possession of the vendor, could have no effect against a person dealing with the property upon the faith of appearances. (Jan 1907) Kuenzle says that it was the owner of the Oregon Saloon (bar, furniture and fixtures worth P1 000) in Cavite and that the Sheriff levied on it. o Sheriff levied based on a judgment won by Macke & Chandler (heretofore referred to as Chandler) against Stanley & Krippendorf (heretofore referred to as Krippendorf). Kuenzle then notified the Sheriff that it was the owner of the Oregon property but Sheriff ignored and proceeded to sell the property. o Chandler was the purchaser. In this case, defendant Chandler says: o Property was not Kuenzles at the time of the levy and sale. o The property was owned by Krippendorf who was in possession of the property at the time of the levy. o That in Jan 1907, Krippendorf was indebted to Kuenzle. And so, Krippendorf attempted to sell the property to Kuenzle. o It was in an instrument in writing but it was never recorded (it was a private document) o That the property was not delivered to Kuenzle so the possession of the property remained with Krippendorf. o Then, Krippendorf and Chandler conducted the sale after the execution of the transaction between Krippendorf and Kuenzle (terms and conditions exactly the same), without reference to Kuenzle

Issue: 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 Courts answer. So I guess the transaction between Krippendor & Kuenzle was inc omplete Ratio: 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 except by delivery of the property itself; and that a sale without delivery giv es the would-be purchaser no rights in those property except those of a creditor The bill of sale in this case was a bill of sale of personal property. A bill of sale of personal property, executed in a private document and unrecorded, which property described there was not delivered and remained in possession of the vendor, could have no effect against a person dealing with the property upon the faith of appearances. Kuenzle cites a case (Kuenzle v. AS Watson) which the SC did not find to be applicable. o That was a case of the sale of property upon the condition that the title should remain in the vendor until the purchase price should be fully paid o And that in case of non-payment of the debt or any instalment, the vendor would have a rights to take possession of the property and deal with it as provided for in the contract That case was inapplicable because: o In that case, the Court held that such a contract for the conditional sale of goods was valid also as to third persons, provided possession of the property was taken by the vendor before the rights of third persons intervened against the same In this case, the bill of sale was not a conditional sale of property so the principles in Kuenzle v. AS Watson are inapplicable. Chandler purchased the property at an execution sale. And so , Chandler obtained a good title to the property as against Kuenzle. Judgment affirmed.