Legal Opinion

City National Bank v. Isenberg

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1915No. Appeal, No. 186Published

Appeal, No. 186, Oct. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 70, on verdict for plaintiff in case of City National Bank of Auburn v. David Isenberg et al., trading as Roman Automobile Company. Foreign attachment to determine the title to ownership, of certain automobiles.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 186, Oct. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 70, on verdict for plaintiff in case of City National Bank of Auburn v. David Isenberg et al., trading as Roman Automobile Company. Foreign attachment to determine the title to ownership, of certain automobiles. Before Sulzberger, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the defendants, trading as the Roman Automobile Company, early in 1911 entered into an agreement with the W. H. McIntyre Company to purchase twenty automobiles. Twelve of these cars were shipped in four separate shipments,…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Head, J.,

In its controlling facts this case is scarcely, if at all, distinguishable from First National Bank, Chicago v. Hartzell, 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 56. There is no warrant in the evidence for any conclusion other than that the plaintiff bank was a holder for value of the bill of lading with the accompanying draft. A theory to the contrary is evolved by way of argument from the single fact that the proceeds of the draft, when purchased by the bank, were credited in a special account of the drawer. It was shown that by reason of some contract or arrangement, altogether foreign to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. First National Bank of Chicago v. W. J. Hartzell Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API