court held that each act of repair gave rise to a separate negligence cause of action
How later courts described this case
- court held that each act of repair gave rise to a separate negligence cause of action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
On application for rehearing, appellant submits that our determination of jurisdiction of the Alabama Court over appellant was based solely upon the shipment by appellant of the trailer into this state. Therefore if title to the trailer was not in appellant as it entered Alabama, there would •be no doing of business by appellant in this state to give our Courts jurisdiction. It is further argued that there was no title to the property in appellant as it came into Alabama. Since it was shown to be sold F.O.B. Elkhart, Indiana, and transport costs were paid by purchaser, this title passed at point of origin.
We assure appellant that our determination of jurisdiction was not based solely upon the sale of the trailer to a purchaser in Alabama with title passing in this state. An examination of our original opinion will disclose that primarily, jurisdiction was based upon the performance of work and *267 service and the extending and acceptance of the warranty in this state. It was not necessary to our decision that we determine as a matter of fact when title to the trailer passed and we did not do so.
The general rule is stated by appellant as follows:
“The general rule is that delivery of personal property by the seller to a carrier F.O.B. the seller’s place of business vests title to the property in the buyer upon delivery to the carrier.”
We would suggest to appellant that this stated “general rule” be re-examined for correctness and that it be compared with the “general rule” as stated in State v. Matthews Electric Supply Co., 284 Ala. 9 , 221 So.2d 126 .
We think it will appear that the passing of title is determined by the intent of the parties to the sale and not by the delivery of the merchandise to a carrier. (Title 57, Sections 24, 25, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958); Hamm v. Continental Gin Co., 276 Ala. 611 , 165 So.2d 392 ; State v. Mobile Stove & Pulley Mfg. Co., 255 Ala. 617 , 52 So.2d 693 .
Without deciding as a matter of fact the time and place of passing of title, we would point out that there was evidence that in spite of an alleged F.O.B. Elkhart price quotation and an additional charge for transportation, such transport was by appellant’s own tractor, delivery was not complete until inspection and approval of the trailer at destination, and sales price was not paid until notice of delivery and acceptance was given. We believe it also apparent from the evidence that all parties considered any loss in transit to be that of the seller.
With such evidence it would be a question of fact as to when and where title passed and the so-called general rule would not be conclusive. State v. Matthews Electric Supply Co., supra.
Opinion extended: application for rehearing denied.