Cabeen v. Campbell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias by Charles B. Campbell and John F. Cottrell, trading as Charles B. Campbell & Co., against Robert B. Cabeen and Adam A. Konigmacher, trading as Cabeen & Co., garnishees of Louis Chevrier, the defendant in a foreign attachment.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias by Charles B. Campbell and John F. Cottrell, trading as Charles B. Campbell & Co., against Robert B. Cabeen and Adam A. Konigmacher, trading as Cabeen & Co., garnishees of Louis Chevrier, the defendant in a foreign attachment. The facts are fully set forth in the following case which was stated for the opinion of the court below:— “ On the 7th or 8th of January 1855, the garnishees received a letter from H. B. Seidel, relative to a quantity of blooms which he had previously sold to Louis Chevrier, as follows:— Monroe Eorge,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Strong, J.
— The right of a vendor to arrest goods sold, while they are in transitu to the vendee, is a right eminently favoured by the law. So strongly is it maintained that the vendor is permitted to resume his possession by any means not criminal, while the property is on the transit. No intervening attachment or execution against the vendee will defeat the right; or be allowed to interpose any obstacle to the vendor’s resumption of possession. Nor is this indulgence to the seller without substantial reason. It is grossly inequitable that his goods,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re M. Burke & Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
- Diehl v. McCormickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891