Laussatt v. Lippincott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
UPON the trial of this cause before Duncan, J. at Nisi , ^ _ ,.x . , ¶ . n Prtus, m April, 1820, it appeared to be an action oí trover f°r a quantity of coffee, which it was agreed was the property of the plaintiff, who, in the month of March, 1816, employed William Harlan, a merchandise broker, to sell it. The coffee was P^aced in stores, the keys of which were in the power of Harlan. The plaintiff’s orders were not to'sell at less than 27 cents a pound.
Read the full summary
UPON the trial of this cause before Duncan, J. at Nisi , ^ _ ,.x . , ¶ . n Prtus, m April, 1820, it appeared to be an action oí trover f°r a quantity of coffee, which it was agreed was the property of the plaintiff, who, in the month of March, 1816, employed William Harlan, a merchandise broker, to sell it. The coffee was P^aced in stores, the keys of which were in the power of Harlan. The plaintiff’s orders were not to'sell at less than 27 cents a pound. This was the only restriction. The authority of Harlan was to sell, deliver, and receive payment. The defendants were commission merchants,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
That a factor cannot pledge the goods of his principal for *392his own debt, seems to be too well settled to admit of a dispute. It was so' decided by C. J. Lee in Patterson v. Tash, 2 Str. 1178, at Nisi Prius, and that decision has been adhered to, though not without some reluctance. Indeed, it is no wonder it has been said by some modern Judges, that perhaps it would have been as. well if the law had been originally decided otherwise ; for certainly it bears extremely hard upon persons who deal with a factor, without a possibility of knowing…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Newbold v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833