Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    39 Baron v. David

    Uploaded by

    Anthony Choi
    The plaintiffs placed rice (palay) in the defendant's rice mill for milling between March and May 1920. The defendant's mill was later destroyed by a fire in January 1921. The plaintiffs claimed the palay was sold to the defendant, while the defendant argued it was deposited subject to future withdrawal. The court found that even if it was a deposit, the defendant's use of the palay to mill and sell it meant he was bound to account for its value. The fire did not extinguish the defendant's liability since the palay had already been milled and likely sold before the fire. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the value of the palay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    39 Baron v. David

    Uploaded by

    Anthony Choi
    2K views1 page
    The plaintiffs placed rice (palay) in the defendant's rice mill for milling between March and May 1920. The defendant's mill was later destroyed by a fire in January 1921. The plaintiffs claimed the palay was sold to the defendant, while the defendant argued it was deposited subject to future withdrawal. The court found that even if it was a deposit, the defendant's use of the palay to mill and sell it meant he was bound to account for its value. The fire did not extinguish the defendant's liability since the palay had already been milled and likely sold before the fire. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the value of the palay.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs placed rice (palay) in the defendant's rice mill for milling between March and May 1920. The defendant's mill was later destroyed by a fire in January 1921. The plaintiffs claimed the palay was sold to the defendant, while the defendant argued it was deposited subject to future withdrawal. The court found that even if it was a deposit, the defendant's use of the palay to mill and sell it meant he was bound to account for its value. The fire did not extinguish the defendant's liability since the palay had already been milled and likely sold before the fire. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the value of the palay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    39 Baron v. David

    Uploaded by

    Anthony Choi
    The plaintiffs placed rice (palay) in the defendant's rice mill for milling between March and May 1920. The defendant's mill was later destroyed by a fire in January 1921. The plaintiffs claimed the palay was sold to the defendant, while the defendant argued it was deposited subject to future withdrawal. The court found that even if it was a deposit, the defendant's use of the palay to mill and sell it meant he was bound to account for its value. The fire did not extinguish the defendant's liability since the palay had already been milled and likely sold before the fire. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the value of the palay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DEPOSIT CREDIT

    TRANSACTIONS
    Baron v David
    G.R. Nos. L-26948 and L-26949 | October 8, In view of the nature of the defendant's
    1927| STREET, J. activities and the way in which the palay was
    SALE BA O DEPOSIT? EVEN IF DEPOSIT USE OF handled in the defendant's mill, it is quite
    THE THING TURNS IT INTO COMMODATUM certain that all of the plaintiffs' palay, which
    was put in before June 1, 1920, been milled
    FACTS and disposed of long prior to the fire of January
    17, 1921.
    PABLO RUNS A RICE MILL, PLAINTIFF
    PLACES RICE IN MILL, FIRE GUTS MILL, Considering the fact that the defendant had
    PALAY GONE thus milled and doubtless sold the plaintiffs'
    palay prior to the date of the fire, it result that
    Defendant Pablo David has been running a rice he is bound to account for its value, and his
    mill in Pampanga. One day a fire occurred that liability was not extinguished by the
    destroyed the mill and its contents. Silvestra occurrence of the fire.
    Baron, the plaintiff in the first action, is an aunt
    of the defendant; while Guillermo Baron, the EVEN IF DEPOSIT, USE OF THE THING
    plaintiff in the other action; is his uncle. In the BINDS DEFENDANT TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS
    months of March, April, and May, 1920, VALUE
    Silvestra Baron placed a quantity of palay in
    the defendant's mill. During the same period Even supposing that the palay may have been
    Guillermo Baron also placed palay in the mill. delivered in the character of deposit, subject to
    future sale or withdrawal at plaintiffs' election,
    PLAINTIFFS CLAIM PALAY WAS SOLD, nevertheless if it was understood that the
    DEFENDANT ARGUES IT WAS DEPOSIT defendant might mill the palay and he has in
    AND THAT THE FIRE RELIEVED HIM OF fact appropriated it to his own use, he is of
    LIABILITY course bound to account for its value

    Both plaintiffs claim that the palay delivered by Under art 1768 of the Civil Code when the
    them to defendant was sold to defendant; depository has permission to make use of the
    while defendant claims that the palay was thing deposited, the contract loses the
    deposited subject to future withdrawal by the character of mere deposit and becomes a loan
    depositors or subject to some future sale which or a commodatum; and of course by
    was never effected. He therefore supposes appropriating the thing, the bailee becomes
    himself to be relieved from all responsibility by responsible for its value.
    virtue of the fire, already mentioned.
    In this connection we wholly reject the
    ISSUE: defendant's pretense that the palay delivered
    by the plaintiffs or any part of it was actually
    WON the palay was a deposit or a sale (SALE) consumed in the fire of January, 1921. Nor is
    WON defendants are liable to plaintiffs (YES) the liability of the defendant in any wise
    affected by the circumstance that, by a custom
    HELD prevailing among rice millers in this country,
    persons placing palay with them without
    PALAY WAS SOLD, LIABILITY NOT special agreement as to price are at liberty to
    EXTINGUISHED BY FIRE. PLAINTIFF withdraw it later, proper allowance being made
    BOUND TO ACCOUNT FOR IT for storage and shrinkage, a thing that is
    sometimes done, though rarely.

    CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

    You might also like