Belfield v. National Supply Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 149, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1897, No. 166, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. At the trial the court gave binding instructions for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 149, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1897, No. 166, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. At the trial the court gave binding instructions for plaintiff. Verdict for plaintiff for $1,528.95. On a rule for a new trial McClung, J., filed the following opinion, which states the facts: Plaintiff sues defendant for the price of certain goods, viz : iron cocks, sold and delivered to defendant by or through the firm of Dickson & Kerr. It is admitted that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
That defendant dealt with Dickson & Kerr as principals is clear from the whole course of their previous transactions. The fact that Dickson & Kerr also did business as brokers was immaterial unless defendant gave orders to them as such. One who gives an order for goods to A cannot have it transferred by. A to B without the buyer’s knowledge and consent.. And even if it turns out that A was all the time only agent for B as an undisclosed principal, yet B’s rights under the contract will be limited by the rights which the buyer has in good faith acquired against A…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Frame v. William Penn Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Frazier v. PoindexterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Hagan v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- The Air Scale Co. v. Nock Company, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929