Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Samson Iron Works

Judge (after stating the facts as above). [1,2] Tlie plaintiff relies principally upon alleged errors in the instructions of the court to the jury on the subject of the plaintiff’s claim for damages. It was agreed in the contract between the plaintiff and the *18 defendant that no property in or title to any part of the apparatus furnished by the plaintiff, and no right to use the same, should pass to the defendant, but that all thereof should remain the personal property of the plaintiff until fully paid for, and that, on default of the defendant in making stipulated payments at the time specified, plaintiff should he. entitled to immediate possession of the apparatus and free to enter upon premises wherever the same might be located and remove its property. The court, referring to this provision of the contract, said to the jury:

As to the plaintiff’s claim for damages in connection with the second and third generators, the court charged the jury that if they found that the two generators which were not shipped, but were subsequently sold by the plaintiff, were sold for as much as tire plaintiff would have realized for them under the contract, the plaintiff could not be allowed…