Clemens v. Davis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Bucks. Dec. 31. Trespass against the sheriff for levying on the goods of plaintiff. It appeared that Clemens, the plaintiff, called at the shop of Reigle, who was a carriage maker, and agreed to take a. carriage then being built, as soon as it should be completed, at a price to be fixed between $150 and $160. About five months after, Clemens being a creditor of Reigle, called again, and agreed to take the carriage in its then unfinished…
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Bucks. Dec. 31. Trespass against the sheriff for levying on the goods of plaintiff. It appeared that Clemens, the plaintiff, called at the shop of Reigle, who was a carriage maker, and agreed to take a. carriage then being built, as soon as it should be completed, at a price to be fixed between $150 and $160. About five months after, Clemens being a creditor of Reigle, called again, and agreed to take the carriage in its then unfinished condition, in satisfaction of his debt, and it was accordingly delivered to him. On the same day, an execution against…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
As in every other case of an article ordered, the first contract in this case was executory. It was for a finished article, and nothing but the delivery of a finished article could satisfy it. But the terms of it might be altered or even entirely changed by a new bargain ; and were they not ? The plaintiff, being the vendor’s creditor, received the wagon 'in an unfinished state, in satisfaction of his debt, when his debtor was breaking up; and certainly any one may acquire title to an article by paying for it, and receiving it as it exists at the time. There is no principle of law to forbid…
2Cited by3 opinions
- E. Keeler Co. v. SchottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Colbert v. SuttonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1880
- R. F. Darrah Lumber Co. v. McGowin Lumber Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1919