Summeril v. Elder

1 Binn. 106, 1804 Pa. LEXIS 43
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 12, 1804·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Shippen C. J.

Even granting that the parties in this case have equal equity, still he that has the law must prevail. Now there can be nothing more clear than that upon the delivery of the bill of lading to the captain upon the 31st of January, the [109]*109property vested in the defendant, it continued at his risk from that time to the 10th February, and had it been lost he and not Dawson and Watt would have been the sufferers. After having so vested, there was no authority in the agents to change the rights of the parties. The opinion of the court is that there must be

Judgment for defendant.

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

Summeril v. Elder, 1 Binn. 106, 1804 Pa. LEXIS 43 (Pa. 1804).

1 Binn. 106 (Summeril v. Elder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murdy v. McCutcheon
95 Pa. 435 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Schmertz v. Dwyer
53 Pa. 335 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1867)
Schumacher v. Eby
24 Pa. 521 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1855)
William S. Wright & Co. v. Ellis
1 Handy 546 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1855)
Camp v. Wood
10 Watts 118 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1840)
Clark v. Mauran
3 Paige Ch. 373 (New York Court of Chancery, 1831)
Ilsley v. Stubbs
9 Mass. 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1812)
Walter v. Ross
29 F. Cas. 117 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, 1808)