Legal Opinion

Ewing v. Musser

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 3, 1910No. Appeal, No. 187Published

Appeal, No. 187, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of 0. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 89, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James T. Ewing, doing business under the firm name of James T. Ewing & Company, v. F. C. Musser. Trespass for conversion.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 187, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of 0. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 89, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James T. Ewing, doing business under the firm name of James T. Ewing & Company, v. F. C. Musser. Trespass for conversion. Before Hassler, J. From the record it appeared that on June 1,1908, the plaintiff received a telegram, at his home or place of business, in Kansas City, Mo., from EL K. Alwine, of which the following is a copy: “Ship me Tuesday two loads heifers Lancaster care Musser average eight fifty draw Middletown,” to which the plaintiff…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The appellant contends for two propositions: (1) that there was a delivery of the cattle to the purchaser as a result of which the title passed to him free from lien for the purchase money, and (2) that the sale of the cattle .by the defendant at the stock yards in accordance with a local custom converted the property into money and that an action of trespass in the nature of trover cannot be sustained. That the negotiation between Alwine and the plaintiff contemplated a cash payment can hardly be doubted. The telegraphic order for the stock directed the plaintiff to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Frech v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Welsh v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
  3. Hand v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  4. Woolsey v. Axton & SonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API