Executors of Godfrey v. Forrest

1 S.C.L. 300
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided January 15, 1793·Published

Opinion

The Court,

upon the same ground as in the preceding, case, were clearly of opinion that a factor could not give the goods of his principal in payment of his own debts. T'hat the sale of the factor raised a contract between the' original owner and the purchaser $ and that nothing but actualpayment, either to the factor or principal, would discharge such contract.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and on motion for a new trial, made on the adjournment day following, it was ordered without argument.

The cause came on to be tried, a second time, in the succeeding May term, before a special jury, consisting of merchants and planters, when, after remaining all night in the jury-room, they returned into court, next morning, equally divided in opinion, viz. the planters for the plaintiff, and the merchants for the defendant. And as both parties ex[301] pressed their fixed determination to adhere to their opinions, they were, by consent of the parties to the suit, dismissed.

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

Executors of Godfrey v. Forrest, 1 S.C.L. 300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1793).

1 S.C.L. 300 (Executors of Godfrey v. Forrest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.