Dorsh v. Lea
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 92, Oct. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 1023, on case stated in suit of William Dorsh & Sons’ Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Henry C. Lea. Case stated in replevin. The material portions of the case stated were as follows: This suit is an action of replevin for goods distrained by the defendant for rent in arrear, and claimed by the corporation plaintiff as its property.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 92, Oct. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 1023, on case stated in suit of William Dorsh & Sons’ Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Henry C. Lea. Case stated in replevin. The material portions of the case stated were as follows: This suit is an action of replevin for goods distrained by the defendant for rent in arrear, and claimed by the corporation plaintiff as its property. One John J. Kolhoff, on June 29, 1896, became tenant to defendant, Henry C. Lea, of premises No. 54 North Twelfth street, in the city of Philadelphia, by virtue of an…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
It may be said generally that goods of strangers, consigned to an agent to be sold on commission, are not liable to distress for rent due by the agent. The appellant contends that this rule is applicable to the present controversy. The facts exhibited by the case stated are in epitome as follows: Kolhoff rented certain premises from the defendant and conducted therein an ordinary retail shoe store. The plaintiff sent him *451certain shoes “ on consignment.” Kolhoff agreed to return to the plaintiff the money for the goods after they were sold,— the amount returned…
2Cited by3 opinions
- N. Z. Graves Co. v. SmithSuperior Court of Delaware · 1915
- Baldwin Piano Co. v. Moyer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1925
- Clothier v. BraithwaiteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903