Buckley v. Duff & Sons
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court'of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October Term, 1886, No. 171. This was a feigned issue, framed to determine the ownership of certain machines for making paper boxes, wherein Charles Buckley was plaintiff and P. Duff & Sons were defendants. The facts of the ease appear from the following opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court'of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October Term, 1886, No. 171. This was a feigned issue, framed to determine the ownership of certain machines for making paper boxes, wherein Charles Buckley was plaintiff and P. Duff & Sons were defendants. The facts of the ease appear from the following opinion of the court. Stowe, P., J., directing judgment to be entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto: On the trial of the case the following facts were proven and admitted, viz.:— That on the 1st of July, 1872, Charles Buckley, the plaintiff, sold his paper box…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clark
No question of actual fraud arises upon this record; the court gave binding instructions to the jury to find for the defendant, upon the ground that the transaction of 1875, between Greaves & Marland and Buckley, was fraudulent in law; the case must therefore be considered apart from any allegation of intentional fraud.
The general rule of law is undoubted’that where the sale of personal goods, reasonably susceptible of delivery, is not accompanied by a transfer of the actual possession, although valid and binding as between the parties (Boyle v. Rankin, 22 Pa. St., 168), it is a fraud per se…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Nolan v. NolanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- In Re MessengerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
- In Re Kellett Aircraft CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- Weller v. MeederSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Hemphill Co. v. Davis Knitting Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.