Myers v. Entriken
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. James Entriken, Jun. against Myers & Richey. Case in assumpsit. The defendants received a quantity of blooms from the plaintiff to sell on commission.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. James Entriken, Jun. against Myers & Richey. Case in assumpsit. The defendants received a quantity of blooms from the plaintiff to sell on commission. On the 27 th of December 1841 they sold the blooms to Messrs King, Higby & Anderson, and on the same day informed the plaintiff, by letter, as follows: “ We have sold your blooms to King, Higby & Anderson, at four, six and eight months’ time, for $60 per ton, which was the best that could be done in our market,” &c. The defendants endorsed these notes and discounted them in bank.for their own…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was. delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The usage of factors, said to prevail in Pittsburgh, to sell on account of their principal, take notes in their own names with an agreement to renew, and discount them for their own accommodation as long as the bank is willing, is a gross imposition, which can never be sanctioned by a court of justice. In this instance the defendants, who-are commission merchants, sold at four, six and eight months; took the purchasers’ notes in their own name, and discounted them in bank for their own use. Pursuant to a secret agreement with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodenow v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by1 opinion
- Morris v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846