Keil v. Harris

6 A. 750, 4 Sadler 201, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 948
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 15, 1886·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The whisky in controversy, being in a bonded warehouse, was properly delivered by Vandegrift & Brother, by their certificate or bill of sale, to Miller, Force, & Company, under and by virtue of which the defendant claims. It is well settled that where personal property is in the hands of a bailee, a transfer by bill of sale alone is good and valid even as against the creditors of the vendor.

Judgment affirmed.

Let a judgment of affirmance he also entered in the case between the same parties, No. 64, October and November Term.

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

Keil v. Harris, 6 A. 750, 4 Sadler 201, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 948 (Pa. 1886).

6 A. 750 (Keil v. Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trainer v. Saunders
113 A. 681 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)