Goddard, Hill & Co. v. Leopold Weil & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, October Term, 1894, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1893, No. 1, on a verdict for the plaintiff. Feigned issue to determine ownership of contents of jewelry-store.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 119, October Term, 1894, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1893, No. 1, on a verdict for the plaintiff. Feigned issue to determine ownership of contents of jewelry-store. Before Porter, J. At the trial it appeared that, early in 1893, Edward J. Black, a retail jewelry dealer-in the city of Allegheny, was indebted to Leopold Weil & Co. He was also indebted to Goddard, Hill & Co. in the sum of $2,810. On Jan. 23,1893, Black executed and delivered to Goddard, Hill & Co., a bill of sale of the contents of his store, the consideration named in the bill…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
Where personal property sold is not reasonably susceptible of actual delivery a constructive delivery is sufficient, and it is not necessary that the vendee should do more than assume such control of it as to reasonably indicate the fact of the change of ownership. If there has been neither delivery nor the assumption of control, it may be the duty of the court to pronounce the sale void for legal fraud; but when the vendee has assumed control, the question whether the sale is bona fide is usually one of fact, and the question is whether the vendee has done all that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
3Cited by11 opinions
- White v. GunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Wendel v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- McCullough v. WilleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Kendig v. BinkleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Weller v. MeederSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.