Post v. Berwind-White Coal-Mining Co.

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL:
• Citation: Post v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 176 Pa. 297 (Pa. 1896)
• Decision Date: 15 July 1896
• Docket Number: 400
• Parties: H.A.V. Post, Trustee, Claimant, v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., Appellant

176 Pa. 297

H. A. V. Post, Trustee, Claimant,

v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 23, 1896.

July 15, 1896.

Argued March 23, 1896.

Appeal, No. 400, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 17, on report of referee in favor of plaintiff.

Before STERRETT, C. J., GREEN, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and DEAN, JJ. Affirmed.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard C. Dale and Henry C. Terry, for appellant.—Claimant must recover solely on the strength of his own title: Coal Co. v. Manly, 60 Pa. 384; Bloomingdale v. Victor, 147 Pa. 371.

The sale to Stevens being merely colorable and unaccompanied by change of possession was invalid as to creditors of the Phila. Dredging Co. and furnished no protection to the plaintiff: Clow v. Woods, 5 S. & R. 275; McBride v. McClelland, 6 W. & S. 94; Janney v. Howard, 150 Pa. 339; O'Connor v. Clark, 170 Pa. 318. The Dredging Co. being in possession at the time of the judgment, the levy gave appellants a lien enabling them to raise the question of title: Dick v. Cooper, 24 Pa. 221.

E. Cooper Shapley, for appellee.—The contract by which plaintiff occupied the position of a conditional vendor was valid between the parties to it: Forrest v. Nelson, 108 Pa. 481; Enlow v. Kline, 79 Pa. 488; Hartley v. Decker, 89 Pa. 470; Edward's Appeal, 105 Pa. 103. It is only such creditors as seize property while in the vendee's possession who can acquire rights superior to those of the conditional vendor: Hineman v. Matthews, 138 Pa. 204. A mere wrongdoer in possession can confer no greater rights than he has nor can his creditors: Hosack v. Weaver, 1 Yeates, 478; Hardy v. Metzgar, 2 Yeates, 347; Easton v. Worthington, 5 S. & R. 130; Gump v. Showalter, 43 Pa. 507; Barker v. Dinsmore, 72 Pa. 427. The facts found by a referee are as conclusive as if they had been found by a jury: Lee v. Keys, 88 Pa. 175; Brown v. Dempsey, 95 Pa. 246; Phila. v. Linnard, 97 Pa. 242; Bank v. Sullivan, 11 W. N. C. 362.

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL, July 15, 1896:

The hinge of this case is the character of the sale to Stevens. It may be conceded, as it was by the learned referee, that Mundy, Sharp & Busch were vendees in possession, and that the outstanding legal title in Post being merely security to the vendor for the purchase money, could not prevail against an attaching creditor of the vendees. For the same reasons a bona fide purchaser for value if without notice would take a superior title and if with notice, though he would take subject to the legal title as security for the purpose named, yet his title would be good as against all others.

The learned referee finds that Stevens "actually, for a valuable consideration, purchased, took possession of, and thereafter exclusively operated the plant." This puts an end to any question of constructive fraud. It is true that the location and use of the property was not changed. It could not well be, as it was employed in the work of removing the islands in the Delaware river opposite Philadelphia, under contract with the United States, and had to stay where the work was. But a change of possession may be as well by the old owner going out and the new owner coming in while the property remains in the same place, as by the new owner taking it away to a new place. The difference is not in legal effect, but in facility of proof.

With this cardinal fact thus established, the solution of the three questions presented by the appellant is not difficult.

First, it is argued that even if Stevens' title is good, it cannot be set up to help the plaintiff, Post. It is true that the rule in sheriff's interpleaders is that the claimant must recover on his own title and not on one outstanding in a third person, but it has no application here because Post's title is good against all the world but certain excepted parties, to wit: creditors of the Dredging Company having a lien by levy or attachment on the property, and such lien must be acquired while...