## Facts

- Hammond agreed to transfer a mill to George and Thomas Webb in exchange for their services of grinding a large value of Hammond’s wheat into flour and delivering the flour to him.
- Hammond delivered several thousand bushels of wheat to the Webbs’ mill for grinding.
- The Webbs mixed Hammond’s wheat with wheat they owned, making the original wheat indistinguishable.
- The Webbs left town; before leaving they instructed their miller to grind Hammond’s wheat and deliver the flour to Hammond.
- After the Webbs’ disappearance, their creditors entered the mill and seized wheat and flour, including flour produced from Hammond’s delivered wheat.
- Hammond claimed a continuing ownership interest in the wheat and in the flour produced from it and sought to recover the flour from the creditors.
- The creditors argued that, by milling-industry custom, commingling made the miller the owner of the grain, leaving Hammond only a contractual right to receive an equivalent amount or product.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of wheat to a miller for grinding, followed by commingling with the miller’s wheat, divests the depositor of a property interest in the wheat and resulting flour.
2. Whether an asserted trade custom can convert what would otherwise be a bailment for processing into a sale transferring title to the miller.
3. Whether the miller’s creditors may levy on commingled grain or flour when the depositor claims retained ownership.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment for Hammond.
- Hammond retained a property interest in the wheat he delivered and in the flour produced from it, notwithstanding commingling.
- The asserted milling custom did not, on these facts, transfer title to the Webbs or permit their creditors to seize Hammond’s flour.

## Legal Principles

- Commingling of fungible goods during contemplated processing does not, by itself, extinguish the original owner’s property interest; the owner may retain an undivided interest in the mass or its product.
- The bailment-versus-sale characterization turns on the parties’ agreement and the substance of the transaction; delivery for work and labor with return of product ordinarily leaves title with the owner absent a contrary intent.
- Trade usage may inform contract interpretation but cannot strip an owner of title or transfer ownership to a bailee without a sufficient basis to find knowing assent to that result.
- Creditors of a possessor generally cannot obtain greater rights in the goods than the possessor has; property held subject to another’s ownership is not available for levy as the debtor’s asset.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hammond’s delivery of wheat for milling created a processing arrangement leaving ownership with Hammond, so commingling and alleged industry custom did not make the wheat or resulting flour subject to seizure by the millers’ creditors.


Inglebright v. Hammond, 19 Ohio 337 (1850)