M'Farland v. Stewart

2 Watts 111
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 15, 1833
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Watts 111 (M'Farland v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M'Farland v. Stewart, 2 Watts 111 (Pa. 1833).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

The contents of the printing office were sold on an execution levied in the lifetime of M’Farland the decedent, and bought in by Stewart, who, it is said, has since sold to Johns, along with the types, presses, &c., the advantages of the whole as an -establishment; and the administrator of M’Farland insists, in behalf [112]*112of the creditors, that Stewart, having sold these advantages as an additional matter, is liable to him for the proceeds as a part of the assets. Undoubtedly the custom or business of one established in an occupation, may enable him to sell the tools or implements of the trade for a price beyond their intrinsic value; and this holds in an especial manner in regard to the subscription list of a newspaper to which a purchaser succeeds as a part of the establishment,. Is it, however, the subject of separate property, or but an accident of something else? The contract of subscription is not assignable; consequently the purchaser does not, in contemplation of law, succeed even , to the interest of the seller, which, by the bye, as the paper may be discontinued at any moment, is not a vested, but a contingent one. The actual advantage to be derived from it resembles that which is derived from the right of renewal, as it is called, incidental to certain leases, which are not at the death of the tenant a separate subject of appraisement or inventory. In the case of an innkeeper, the advantages of the stand would belong to the heir as an incident of the realty ; and in the case of a lawyer or physician, the expectation of practice as a personal incident of professional reputation for skill, would be extinguished by the death of the party. Such advantages then are too ephemeral or indeterminate to be the subject of separate and specific ownership; and whatever they may have been in the present instance, they passed to Stewart as an accessary of the principal sold to him by virtue of the execution.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Baer's Estate
38 Pa. D. & C. 409 (Montgomery County Orphans' Court, 1940)
Magee v. Pope
112 S.W.2d 891 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1938)
Van Der Burg v. Bailey
229 N.W. 253 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Vinall v. Hendricks
71 N.E. 682 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1904)
Williams v. Farrand
14 L.R.A. 161 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1891)
Barber v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins.
15 F. 312 (N.D. New York, 1883)
Holden's Administrators v. M'Makin
1 Parsons 270 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1847)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Watts 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mfarland-v-stewart-pa-1833.