Rahter v. First National Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 178. Assumpsit by the First National Bank of Lancaster against Henry Rahter. Defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, set-off, Sc. At the trial, it appeared that in 1872 David G. Swartz had a quantity of whiskey, the product of his distillery, which, together with his distillery, he sold to Rahter.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 178. Assumpsit by the First National Bank of Lancaster against Henry Rahter. Defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, set-off, Sc. At the trial, it appeared that in 1872 David G. Swartz had a quantity of whiskey, the product of his distillery, which, together with his distillery, he sold to Rahter. In payment therefor he received from Rahter a certain amount of cash, a house in Baltimore, and the note in suit. A draft, also in suit, was given by Rahter to pay arrears of ground-rent and taxes on the Baltimore property. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered January 19th 1880,
2Per curiam
In Holt v. Green, 28 P. F. Smith 198, the Act of Congress expressly prohibited any person from engaging in or carrj'ing on the business of a commercial broker without a license. That is not this case. Swartz may have made himself liable to the penalty imposed by the act, but we see nothing which made it unlawful to sell the whiskey which he had distilled, nor do we think that the particular transaction here in question made him a dealer within the true meaning of the law.
Judgment affirmed.'
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hertzler v. GeigleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Hazle Drug Co. v. WilnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Lloyd v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1916
- In re LubyDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1907
- Smith Rolfe Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.