Keim v. Rush
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of assumpsit for-goods sold and delivered by John Rush against Keim, Whitaker & Co. The plaintiff having been sworn, said: “ This is my book of original entries. These entries are in my handwriting, made- at the time they bear date. I had | my forge in Hereford township, and lived there. The defendants lived in Reading, and had their rolling-mill there, about 21 miles off. I made the entries at the forge.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Berks county. This was an action of assumpsit for-goods sold and delivered by John Rush against Keim, Whitaker & Co. The plaintiff having been sworn, said: “ This is my book of original entries. These entries are in my handwriting, made- at the time they bear date. I had | my forge in Hereford township, and lived there. The defendants lived in Reading, and had their rolling-mill there, about 21 miles off. I made the entries at the forge. When the wagons were loaded, and the teams started, then I went and made the entries. It was my team and carter.” The plaintiff…
1Per curiam
The case does not call on us to decide whether the property in the blooms passed by the delivery to the carter. That question might be a difficult one; though, it is very clear, the property would have passed by a delivery to a general carter, or one employed by the vendee. The blooms were sent by the vendor’s own wagon, and the vendor made the entries in the book as soon as they were loaded and started. When else ought he to have made them ? Not, say the vendees, till the return of the carters had made it certain that the blooms had been received. *379But that would have made the fact of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rhoads v. GaulSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Singerly v. DoerrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Molony v. BennersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Baker's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Lancaster County · 1942