Legal Opinion

Western National Bank v. York Silk Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 22, 1909No. Appeal, No. 162PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 162, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from decree of C. P. York Co., Jan. T., 1908, No. 1, on bill in equity in case of Western National Bank, American Silk Company, C. H. Emig and Harry S. Wiest v. York Silk Manufacturing Company. Bill in equity for a receiver.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 162, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from decree of C. P. York Co., Jan. T., 1908, No. 1, on bill in equity in case of Western National Bank, American Silk Company, C. H. Emig and Harry S. Wiest v. York Silk Manufacturing Company. Bill in equity for a receiver. Wanner, J., stated the facts to be as follows: The claim of Brown Brothers & Company, is for the sum of $153,187.96 for moneys advanced, at the request of the York'Silk Manufacturing Company, in the purchase of raw silk in Japan, with interest on a part thereof, and $5,000 for plaintiffs’ expenses and counsel fees. The…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

Nothing more could be said, or better said, than has been said by the learned counsel for appellant to sustain the position taken in the court below and here on the questions involved. This position is very frankly stated to be “that by the terms of this contract no credit was authorized to be given to appellant. Silk was purchased for the appellees through the agency of the appellant and paid for by means of drafts drawn by the merchant upon the appellees. The silk so purchased immediately became the property of the appellees, and was never at any time the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bank of North America v. Penn Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. Wood v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API