Riggs v. Bair
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 126, Oct. T., 1905, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1904, No. 1, for plaintiff in case of E. H. Riggs v. H. C. Bair. Feigned issue to determine the ownership of certain coffee. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 126, Oct. T., 1905, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1904, No. 1, for plaintiff in case of E. H. Riggs v. H. C. Bair. Feigned issue to determine the ownership of certain coffee. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Evans, J., after stating the facts, delivered the following opinion: Binding instructions were given for the plaintiff, subject to the question of law reserved, to wit: whether there was any evidence to go to the jury to sustain the plaintiff’s claim to this coffee. The real question reserved was whether the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mk. Chief Justice Mitcheul,
Plaintiff bought of the Huff Company some thousand pounds of green coffee, at specified prices, and received an invoice showing the kinds and the quantity of each. Payment was made partly in cash and partly in a note subsequently paid. *406The good faith of the transaction was not impeached, but defendant in this issue, a levying creditor, disputed the sufficiency of the delivery.
The purchase was made in the office of the Huff Company and plaintiff did not see the coffee, but bought on description, as he had done in previous dealings. Plaintiff was a retail…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Shipler v. New Castle Paper Products Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Smith v. Equitable Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Proyectos Electronicos, S.A. v. AlperDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Hunter Construction Co. v. LyonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Hayden v. McMillanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.