Holmes v. German Security Bank
| Decision Date | 18 November 1878 |
| Citation | 87 Pa. 525 |
| Parties | Holmes, Lafferty & Co. <I>versus</I> The German Security Bank. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. WOODWARD J., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 165.
Thomas C. Lazear, for plaintiffs in error, contended that the action of the court in taking away the only disputed fact from the jury, and in holding that, as a matter of law, the defendants were liable, was erroneous; that neither the draft by itself, nor in connection with the contract or bill of lading which accompanied it, vested in the bank any title to the hogs or gave it any lien upon them or upon their proceeds for the money advanced thereon to the drawer; that the draft alone had not this effect had been repeatedly decided, and the attaching and handing over to the bank of the contract of carriage along with the draft passed no better title nor created any better lien than did the draft itself; for the bill of lading was nothing more than an agreement between the shipper and the railroad company for the transportation of the hogs. It was a non-negotiable instrument, and mere manual delivery of it conveyed no interest whatever either in the hogs or their proceeds: Hopkins v. Beebe, 2 Casey 85; Farmers' & Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 6 Id. 302; Mrs. Greenfield's Estate, 12 Harris 240; Lloyd v. McCaffrey, 10 Wright 410; First National Bank of Mt. Joy v. Gish, 22 P. F. Smith 13. Even if it was a bill of lading the fact of its being not endorsed or transferred by any words of assignment precluded it from conveying any title, as, under the law, unless a bill of lading is endorsed, it passes no property: 1 Pars. Cont., § 239; Stone v. Snift, 4 Pick. 389; Allen v. Williams, 12 Id. 297; Buffington v. Curtis, 15 Mass. 528; Bell v. Moss, 5 Whart. 205. And the hogs not having been taken into possession by the plaintiff, and in fact, there being nothing in the transaction to indicate that it was the intention of the parties that he should take possession of them, no title to or lien upon them could possibly be acquired as against Harper's other creditors: Clow v. Woods, 5 S. & R. 275; Wells v. Becky, 1 P. & W. 57; Fry v. Miller, 9 Wright 443; Bowen v. Burke, 1 Harris 149; Welsh v. Bell, 8 Casey 13.
Slagle & Wiley, for defendants in error.—A bill of lading being symbolical of the property described...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonial Lumber Co. v. Andelusia Nat. Bank
... ... Dec. 363; Marine Bank ... v. Wright, 48 N.Y. 1; First Nat. Bank v. Kelly, ... 57 N.Y. 34; Holmes v. German Security Bank, 87 Pa ... 525; Clary v. Tyson, 97 Mo.App. 586, 71 S.W. 710; ... City ... ...
-
Scharff v. Meyer
... ... 428 Scharff et al., Appellants, v. Meyer et al.; Union National Bank of New Orleans, Interpleader Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division ... Railroad, 58 N.H. 203; Weyand v. Railroad, 75 ... Iowa 578; Holmes v. Bank, 87 Pa. St. 525; Bank ... v. Jones, 4 N.Y. 497; Bank v ... No note or bill held by this bank as ... collateral security, shall be discounted by the bank until ... the note or bill for which it ... ...
-
C.E. White & Co. v. Century Savings Bank of Des Moines, Iowa
... ... Hough had transferred his interest as owner to the bank as ... collateral security, and the indorsed bill of lading was in ... the hands of the bank, before White & Co. came into ... 907, 22 L.R.A. 415; First National Bank ... of Cincinnati v. Kelly, 57 N.Y. 34; Holmes, Lafferty & Co. v ... German Security Bank, 87 Pa. 525; Barnes Safe & Lock Co. v ... Bloch ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Mt. Pleasant Milling Co.
...property therein passes to the transferee. Conrad v. Insurance Co., 26 U.S. 386, 1 Peters 386, 445; Bank v. Crocker 111 Mass. 163; Holmes v. Bank, 87 Pa. 525; Bank Wright, 48 N.Y. 1; Hathaway v. Haynes, 124 Mass. 311; Dows v. Bank, 91 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 214; Emery v. Bank, 25 Ohio St. 360; ......