Nevada Motor Co. v. Bream

In England, and in every state in the United States except Pennsylvania, where the point has been decided, it has been consistently held that a vendee under a conditional sale contract has no interest in the property sold that could be levied upon under execution or attachment. Some of the authorities so holding are: Barrett v. Pritchard, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 512, 13 Am. Dec. 449; Strong v. Taylor, 2 Hill (N.Y.), 326; Keck et al. v. Natl. Cash Register Co., 12 Ind. App. 119, 39 N.E. 899; Sanders v. Wilson, 8 Mackey (19 D.C.), 555; Owen v. Hastings, 18 Kan. 446; Cole v. Berry, 42 N.J.L. 308, 36 Am. Rep. 511; Herring v. Hoppock,15 N.Y. 409; Hasbrouck v. Lannsbary, 26 N.Y. 598; Hanway v. Wallace,18 Ind. 377; Woodruff v. McDonald Fur. Co., 96 Ga. 86, 23 S.E. 195; Bradshaw v. Thomas, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 497; Smith v. Foster,18 Vt. 182; Natl. Cash Register Co. v. Coleman, 85 Hun. 125, 32 N.Y.S. 593; Morris v. Allen, 17 Cal. App. 684, 121 P. 690; Drake on Attachment, sec. 246; McIver v. Williamson etc. Co.,19 Okla. 454, 92 P. 170, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 696; Marston v. Baldwin,17 Mass. 606; Blanchard v. Child, 7 Gray (Mass.), 155; Porter v. Pettengill, 12 N.H. 299; Marquette Mfg. Co. v. Jeffrey, 49 Mich. 283,13 N.W. 592; Hughes v. Kelly, 40 Conn. 148; 35 Cyc. 678, note 98; Installment Sales (Estrich), sec. 480.

Nor am I in accord with the view that the conditional sale contract was in effect a chattel mortgage. Johnson v. Kaeser et al., 196 Cal. 686, 239 P. 324; Fed. Com. Bank v. Int. Clay M. Co.230 Mich. 33, 203 N.W. 166, 43 A.L.R. 1245, and notes.

Chief Justice Holt in Thorpe v. Thorpe, 1 Salk, 171, laid down a very wholesome rule when he said "every man's bargain ought to be performed as he intended it," which, so far as I am advised, has always been the principle which has been followed by this court.