The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 349
xiv, 992 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AGEN CY OF CANADIAN C. & F. CO. V. PENN8YLVANIA I. W. CO. 349
(256 F.)
possession of the shells, not because of a property interest but under
a lien against them, which, if such existed, could be enforced in an
action of replevin by virtue of section 6 of the Pennsylvania statute
(Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 88), in which it is provided, that if, on
the trial of title and right of possession of goods and chattels "any
party be found to have only a lien upon said goods and chattels, a con-
ditional verdict may be entered, which the court shall enforce in ac-
cordance with equitable principles."
The facts on which the Manufacturer based its claimed lien are
these: When the breach in the contract occurred, the Manufacturer
notified the Purchaser that unless it promptly removed the shells, it
would charge for the expense of retaining them on its premises, in-
volving costs of storage, watchman, insurance, etc. The shells remain-
ed with the Manufacturer until they were replevied. At the trial the
Manufacturer claimed and was allowed to prove a lien for storage,
etc., and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff "upon the condition
of paying the defendant the sum of $375.00."
The right of the Manufacturer to enforce its lien as a condition to
recovery by the Purchaser, depended, of course, upon the Manufac-
turer having such a lien. The trial judge very properly ruled that
such a lien could exist only by reason of a contract either express or
implied. Concededly, it did not arise from the written contract be-
tween the parties. We find in the case no evidence of any other ex-
press contract. If it arose from contract at all, it must have arisen
from an implied contract. While the law might perhaps imply a con-
tract between the parties, making the Purchaser liable to the Manufac-
turer for moneys expended in and about its business, we know of no
such implied contract that raises an implied lien. The lien claimed
in this case admittedly was not given by any statute of Pennsylvania,
nor by any rule of the common law with which we are familiar. In
fact, no case has been cited and no principle has been invoked in sup-
port of the lien which the Manufacturer asserted and the jury found.
In this we think there was error, and direct that the judgment be-
low be reversed.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/363/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.