James H. Link Machinery Co. v. Continental Trust Co.

75 A. 985, 227 Pa. 37, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 598
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 4, 1909·No. Appeal, No. 173·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

January 3, 1910:

The court properly instructed the jury that the agreement under which the plaintiff claimed title to the machinery for which replevin was brought, was on its face a bailment. Whether at the time the agreement was entered into there was an understanding between the parties to it that there was a sale, and the agreement was intended to secure the price, and whether the agreement had been subsequently modified or superseded were questions properly submitted.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

James H. Link Machinery Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 75 A. 985, 227 Pa. 37, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 598 (Pa. 1909).

75 A. 985 (James H. Link Machinery Co. v. Continental Trust Co.) — 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)
Scattergood v. Pine Ridge Coal Co.
5 Pa. D. & C. 107 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
Wilson v. Weaver
66 Pa. Super. 599 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Reading Automobile Co. v. DeHaven
53 Pa. Super. 344 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Groves v. Lewis
53 Pa. Super. 511 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)