National Union Bank v. Shearer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

National Union Bank v. Shearer

74 A. 351, 225 Pa. 470, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 687

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 11, 1909

DocketAppeal, No. 371

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 74 A. 351 (National Union Bank v. Shearer) 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

National Union Bank v. Shearer, 74 A. 351, 225 Pa. 470, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 687 (Pa. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

The Act of September 24, 1866, P. L. (1867) 1363, making warehouse receipts negotiable, does not define a warehouseman, and there is nothing in it requiring him to hold himself out to the general public as such. We have defined him to be “one who receives and stores goods as a business for a compensation or profit:” Bucher v. Com., 103 Pa. 528; Tradesmen’s Nat. Bank v. Jagode, 186 Pa. 556. There was sufficient evidence for the finding by the jury that the appellant was a warehouseman within our definition of the term as used in the act of 1866, and the learned and careful judge below properly so held in his opinion overruling the motion for a new trial and refusing judgment for the defendant n. o. v. On that opinion which clearly and correctly disposes of the questions raised on this appeal I am directed by the court to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

The Act of September 24, 1866, P. L. (1867) 1363, making warehouse receipts negotiable, does not define a warehouseman, and there is nothing in it requiring him to hold himself out to the general public as such. We have defined him to be “one who receives and stores goods as a business for a compensation or profit:” Bucher v. Com., 103 Pa. 528; Tradesmen’s Nat. Bank v. Jagode, 186 Pa. 556. There was sufficient evidence for the finding by the jury that the appellant was a warehouseman within our definition of the term as used in the act of 1866, and the learned and careful judge below properly so held in his opinion overruling the motion for a new trial and refusing judgment for the defendant n. o. v. On that opinion which clearly and correctly disposes of the questions raised on this appeal I am directed by the court to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A. 351, 225 Pa. 470, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-bank-v-shearer-pa-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack