Charles Lippincott & Co. v. Holden
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 212, April T., 1899, by defeudaut, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. Term, 1895, No. 252, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by Orlady, J. Replevin for a soda water fountain. It appears from the record and the evidence that plaintiffs delivered to one Dorrity a soda water apparatus under a contract in writing which was admitted to be a carefully drawn contract of bailment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 212, April T., 1899, by defeudaut, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. Term, 1895, No. 252, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by Orlady, J. Replevin for a soda water fountain. It appears from the record and the evidence that plaintiffs delivered to one Dorrity a soda water apparatus under a contract in writing which was admitted to be a carefully drawn contract of bailment. This contract was not executed until the delivery of the property and until the first payment was made, when notes were given covering the deferred payments called for in the contract. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
Under the terms of a contract in writing, the plaintiff delivered to one Dorrity a soda water apparatus and fixtures and at or about the same time took from Dorrity certain promissory notes representing the amount and maturity of the deferred payments mentioned in the writing, which is admitted to have been a carefully drawn contract of bailment. After paying some of the notes the property was sold by Dorrity or at a sale of his personal property to the L. H. Harris. Drug Company, which subsequently sold it to the defendant who had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ott v. SweatmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Hamilton v. BillingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Goss Printing Press Co. v. JordanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Ditman v. C. B. Cottrell & SonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Sheaffer v. SensenigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walton v. TepelCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913
- Powel v. KahlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925