Ditman v. C. B. Cottrell & Sons
17 A. 504, 125 Pa. 606, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 757
Opinion
The question here is whether the agreement of December 10, 1885, is a conditional sale or a bailment. The learned • court below ruled that it was a bailment, and we see no error in this. The case comes distinctly within Rowe v. Sharp, 51 Pa. 26, and Enlow v. Klein, 79 Pa. 488, and that line of cases.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ditman v. C. B. Cottrell & Sons, 17 A. 504, 125 Pa. 606, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 757 (Pa. 1889).
17 A. 504 (Ditman v. C. B. Cottrell & Sons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commercial Inv. Trust Co. v. Minon
104 F.2d 765 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Duhrkop Oven Co. v. Tormay
9 F.2d 281 (Third Circuit, 1925)
Gotthold v. Crompton & Knowles Loom Works
4 F.2d 50 (Third Circuit, 1925)
Scattergood v. Pine Ridge Coal Co.
5 Pa. D. & C. 107 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
Walton v. Tepel
210 F. 161 (Third Circuit, 1913)
Reading Automobile Co. v. DeHaven
53 Pa. Super. 344 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
L. C. Smith & Bro. Typewriter Co. v. Alleman
199 F. 1 (Third Circuit, 1912)
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Quick
182 F. 603 (Third Circuit, 1910)
John F. Byers Machine Co. v. Risher
41 Pa. Super. 469 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Euwer v. Greer
29 Pa. Super. 262 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Lippincott v. Scott
47 A. 1115 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Charles Lippincott & Co. v. Holden
11 Pa. Super. 15 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
Chestnut Street Nat. Bank v. Crompton Loom Works
73 F. 614 (Third Circuit, 1896)