C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. Van Orsdale

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. Van Orsdale

82 Pa. Super. 72, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 2, 1923

DocketAppeal, 27

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 Pa. Super. 72 (C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. Van Orsdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. Van Orsdale, 82 Pa. Super. 72, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On a sheriff’s interpleader between the judgment debtor’s vendee of machinery and an execution creditor who had levied on it, the court directed a verdict for defendant-creditor, on the ground that the plaintiff-claimant produced no legal evidence of ownership. This appeal challenges that instruction. The following quotation from the opinion of the President Judge of the court below contains all that need be said in affirming. “The sole question......was whether a bill of sale for personal prop'erty of which possession is not delivered to the vendee is good as against a creditor of the vendor. ......Such delivery of possession as is consistent with the nature of the property and the situation of the parties is necessary in order to make a transfer of title to personal property valid against the creditors of the vendor. Where, as in this case, the vendor continues, to all appearances, to occupy the same relation to the property as he did before the attempted transfer, so far as concerns his creditors, no title passes, and they may, for purposes of execution, treat the goods as still belonging to him: Lehr v. Brodbeck, 192 Pa. 535; Barlow v. Fox, 203 Pa. 115; Northrop v. Finn Construction Co., 260 Pa. 15; Rucker v. Spicer, 269 Pa. 451; Bowersox v. Weigle et al., 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 367.”

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

On a sheriff’s interpleader between the judgment debtor’s vendee of machinery and an execution creditor who had levied on it, the court directed a verdict for defendant-creditor, on the ground that the plaintiff-claimant produced no legal evidence of ownership. This appeal challenges that instruction. The following quotation from the opinion of the President Judge of the court below contains all that need be said in affirming. “The sole question......was whether a bill of sale for personal prop'erty of which possession is not delivered to the vendee is good as against a creditor of the vendor. ......Such delivery of possession as is consistent with the nature of the property and the situation of the parties is necessary in order to make a transfer of title to personal property valid against the creditors of the vendor. Where, as in this case, the vendor continues, to all appearances, to occupy the same relation to the property as he did before the attempted transfer, so far as concerns his creditors, no title passes, and they may, for purposes of execution, treat the goods as still belonging to him: Lehr v. Brodbeck, 192 Pa. 535; Barlow v. Fox, 203 Pa. 115; Northrop v. Finn Construction Co., 260 Pa. 15; Rucker v. Spicer, 269 Pa. 451; Bowersox v. Weigle et al., 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 367.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Pa. Super. 72, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-trevor-dunham-inc-v-van-orsdale-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack