Haak v. Linderman

• Decision Date: 05 May 1870
• Parties: Haak <I>versus</I> Linderman & Skeer.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

64 Pa. 499

Haak versus Linderman & Skeer.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 22, 1870.

May 5, 1870.

March 22d 1870.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ. READ, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: No. 30, to January Term 1870 E. Holben and E. Harvey, for plaintiff in error, referred to Clark v. Jack, 7 Watts 375; Myers v. Harvey, 2 Penna. R. 481; Rose v. Story, 1 Barr 195; Sargent v. Giles, 8 N. Hamp. 325; Henderson v. Lauck, 9 Harris 359; Chamberlain v. Smith, 8 Wright 433; Clemens v. Davis, 7 Barr 264; Rowe v. Sharp, 1 P. F. Smith 30.

R. E. Wright, for defendants in error, cited Jenkins v. Eichelberger, 4 Watts 121; Martin v. Mathiot, 14 S. & R. 214; Clow v. Woods, 5 Id. 277; Rose v. Story, supra; Waldron v. Haupt 2 P. F. Smith 408; Welsh v. Bell, 8 Casey 12; Becker v. Smith, 9 P. F. Smith 469.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 5th 1870, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The material inquiry in this case is, whether Palm received the car in question from the plaintiff, under a contract of bailment, or on the foot of a purchase. If the former, plaintiff would be entitled to his property in whosesoever hands it might be found claiming against the bailment. If the latter, the creditors of the vendee could levy on it and sell it as the property of the vendee, whether it was paid for or not, and whether the contract for the sale stipulated for the title remaining in the vendor until paid for or otherwise. No valid lien for purchase-money where the property is delivered on a contract of sale is worth anything: 14 S. & R. 214, 1 Barr 190, 8 Wright 431, 1 P. F. Smith 28, 2 Id. 408. Any number of cases to the same effect, might be added to the list.

The contract between the plaintiff Haak and Palm, is in writing, and so plain as to be unsusceptible of any misunderstanding. In the outset it says, "that John Haak for the consideration hereafter mentioned, doth covenant, and hath sold, and by these presents doth agree to deliver, to the said B. F. Palm, a certain house car, for which the said Franklin Palm agrees to pay the sum of $600 in the following manner." Then follows the stipulation for the payments to be made at several times during a year, within which the whole was to be paid "with legal interest on $300 until paid." It would surpass the keenest astuteness to make out of this anything but an actual sale, and it was accompanied with an actual delivery of the car. But then follows the clause in the same agreement that "the said John Haak reserves the right from said car until fully paid, but the said Palm shall have the use of said car from this date; and should the said B. F. Palm fail to comply with this agreement, the said John Haak shall have a right to take the said car from said Palm, as his property, and the said Palm will forfeit the amount paid on said agreement."

No doubt this might be a valid lien or arrangement as between the parties, and it is likely the parties had nothing else in view. But the policy of the law against secret liens renders it utterly worthless as against creditors, and this the cases cited...