Scott v. Wells
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered brought by Daniel Wells against Hugh Scott to recover the value of a raft of boards, which the plaintiff alleged he had sold and delivered to the defendant, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered brought by Daniel Wells against Hugh Scott to recover the value of a raft of boards, which the plaintiff alleged he had sold and delivered to the defendant, in which a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. C. C. P. Eldred, a witness for the plaintiff, stated that in May 1833 Samuel Tustin, as the agent of the defendant, bought a raft of boards belonging to the plaintiff at $12 per 1000 feet, at Richmond on the Delaware, and took it up the Schuylkill at his own expense…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The material question is, whether the property passed by the sale and delivery in the first instance. The facts were not contested. Eldred, the vendor’s agent, sold a raft of boards to Tustin, the purchaser’s agent, at a certain rate the thousand feet, and delivered it to a person employed by the latter to take it, at the purchaser’s expense and risk, from Richmond on the Delaware to a place on the Schuylkill, where it was after-wards moored. The delivery was unconditional, pursuant to the contract and complete: why then did it not pass…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Cleveland v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Hutchison & Batchelder v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Commonwealth v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Machesky v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Dentzel v. Island Park Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.