O'Neill v. Whigham

87 Pa. 394, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 184
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 21, 1878·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Per Curiam.

The negligence of the plaintiff in this case was simply delay, prompted by no notice, or any fact to indicate to him a necessity to sell the collateral, not only for his own benefit but for that of his debtor; and the cause of loss was an accident unforeseen, and not likely to be foreseen. The stock itself was at its par value for the $5000, while its market value was but about $1400. Had the plaintiff sold the stock without notice to or from the defendant, it might have raised a serious question as to the plaintiff’s liability for the sacrifice. It was in the power of the defendant to have caused a sale by the plaintiff at any time, or else to hold the stock at his own risk. Judgment affirmed.

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

O'Neill v. Whigham, 87 Pa. 394, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 184 (Pa. 1878).

87 Pa. 394 (O'Neill v. Whigham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union Trust Co. v. Long
164 A. 346 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Harper v. Lukens
112 A. 636 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Klee v. Trauerman
60 A. 157 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Scott v. First National Bank of Tulsa
68 L.R.A. 488 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1904)