Baugh v. Kirkpatrick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias in foreign attachment by John P. Baugh and others, trading as Baugh & Sons, against Charles W. Kirkpatrick and others, trading as D. Kirkpatrick & Sons, garnishees of Robei’t Erame.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias in foreign attachment by John P. Baugh and others, trading as Baugh & Sons, against Charles W. Kirkpatrick and others, trading as D. Kirkpatrick & Sons, garnishees of Robei’t Erame. The writ issued October 9th 1865. The plaintiffs issued a foreign attachment against Erame, under which his goods, in the hands of the garnishees, were attached June 14th 1865, and they recovered judgment against the defendants for $1226.58. In answer to interrogatories the garnishees stated, “ that, prior to the service: of the writ of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Agnew, J.
This is a foreign attachment. The defendant had consigned to the garnishees a quantity of leather for sale, on which they had made large advances before the attachment was served. It is contended the attachment arrested their power to sell, leaving the goods tied up in their hands. We cannot assent to this. We are bound to take notice of the general usages governing the contracts of factors and commission merchants. By the order to *86sell and advances made by the factors, an interest was acquired in the goods, with a right to sell which could…
2Cited by3 opinions
- M. M. Walker Co. v. Dubuque Fruit & Produce Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Harrison, Frazier & Co. v. Mora, Ona & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Thomas Roberts & Co. v. Andrews & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900