Inglebright v. Hammond

Bezaleel Hammond (plaintiff) entered into an agreement with George Webb, and later George’s brother Thomas Webb, to sell a mill to the Webbs. Under the agreement, the Webbs agreed to grind several hundred dollars’ worth of wheat into flour for Hammond in exchange for the mill. The Webbs would then deliver the flour to Hammond. Hammond delivered several thousand bushels of wheat to the mill. The Webbs then mixed Hammond’s bushels of wheat with different bushels of wheat that the Webbs owned. After delivery, the Webbs left town and were not heard from again. The Webbs left directions for their miller to grind the wheat Hammond had dropped off and deliver the produced flour to him. However, after the Webbs left town, a group of their other creditors (the creditors) (defendants) went into the mill to seize wheat to satisfy debts that the Webbs allegedly owed them. The creditors also took flour that was ground from the wheat Hammond had placed in the mill. Hammond sued to recover the flour, and the jury sided with Hammond. The creditors appealed, arguing, among other things, that Hammond had lost his property right in the wheat when his wheat was mingled with the wheat of the Webbs. Specifically, the creditors argued that mill-industry custom established that the miller (i.e., the Webbs) became the owner of the wheat when the wheat was mingled together.