Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: must one control the legal right of possession in order properly to be called the legal "owner". The courts are agreed, that, whatever he be called, the buyer, even though he does not take possession, has all the customary rights and liabilities of ownership except as to certain third persons who take possession from the seller in good faith.8 Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of opinions speak of him as having acquired the "ownership". Accordingly his rights will be called "ownership" in this discussion. The ownership may pass to the buyer, if the parties so intend, even though by their agreement he has not even the right to possession, without further act, such as payment of the price.4 Likewise, certain rights generally appertaining to title will pass to the buyer even though the goods are in the adverse possession of a third person, and the transaction is generally called a "sale".5 Payment Not Essential.—Payment is not essential to the passing of title when the parties have not intended that it shall be.6 Presumptions of Intent.—This rule, that the intentionof the parties determines when title passes to specific property, is simple and explicit enough, and involves no difficulty when the parties have made their intention clear. Controversy arises only where the parties can not agree as to what their intent was, or had no conscious, no real intent as to title at all. 3—The rights of such third per- 6—Thompson v. Brannln, 94 sons are discussed Post, p. 212. Ky. 490; Allen v. Rushfort, 72 4—Clark v. Greeley, 62 N. H. Neb. 907; Bayne v. Hard, 79 N. Y. 394; State v. Mullln, 78 O. S. 358, g 208; Richardson v. Insurance 125 Am. St. 710; Obery v. Lander, co.f 136 N. C. 314, Dut compare, 179 Mass. 125; Lester v. East, 49 Hughes v. Knott, 138 N. C. 10... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.