Quinn v. Davis

• Citation: 78 Pa. 15
• Parties: Quinn <I>versus</I> Davis.
• Decision Date: 01 February 1875
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 15

78 Pa. 15

Quinn versus Davis.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 5, 1875.

February 1, 1875.

January 5th 1875.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 6, to January Term 1873.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

A.M. Burton and E.C. Quinn, for plaintiff in error.—A bonâ fide purchaser of property, which has been placed by the owner in the custody of a party whose common business it is to sell, is protected in his purchase: Pickering v. Busk, 15 East 38. Where the owner, by his own indiscretion, clothes a bailee with an apparent authority to sell, or does any other act tending to mislead the public as to the ownership of his property, he cannot recover from an innocent purchaser: Shaw v. Levy, 17 S. & R. 101; Rapp v. Palmer, 3 Watts 178; McMahon v. Sloan, 2 Jones 233; Lecky v. McDermott, 8 S. & R. 500; Rapp v. Palmer, 3 Watts 178.

J. C. Redheffer, for defendant in error.—Where a vendor holds goods in a fiduciary capacity, with no express or implied right from the owner to sell them, he can reclaim them from even a bonâ fide purchaser: Story on Sales 205, pl. 201; McMahon v. Sloan, 2 Jones 229.

Mr. Justice WOODWARD delivered the opinion of the court, February 1st 1875.

Robert S. Davis, the plaintiff below, deposited his household furniture for storage with William R. Kirby, in the spring of 1870. Kirby was a dealer in second-hand furniture. Included in the articles stored was the piano which is the subject of this suit. Soon after the goods were placed in his hands, Kirby received from the plaintiff fifty dollars for nine months' storage in advance. The piano was subsequently removed to the auction store of M. Thomas & Son, who sold it on the 7th of July 1870, under the direction of Kirby, to John Quinn, the defendant below. This action was commenced on the 9th of August 1870, and at the trial, under the instructions of the District Court, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. It is now alleged that these instructions were erroneous, and that the judgment entered on the verdict should be reversed, on the general ground that an honest purchaser of property which has been placed by the owner in the custody of a person whose common business is to sell similar property, ought to be protected in his purchase.

In this state, the owner of a chattel cannot, apart from legal process, be divested of his title to it except as a consequence of some unlawful or improvident act of his own. The transfer of possession to another, without more, is not such an act. It must be accompanied by something to indicate the existence in the custodian of some right of property or some power of alienation. There must be proof of language or conduct that is at least equivocal. The general rule stated in Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 366, that "the title of property in things movable can pass from the owner only by his own consent and voluntary act, or by operation of law," was recognised in McMahon v. Sloan, 2 Jones 229, and has been uniformly accepted and applied in the practice of this court.

The arrangement between the plaintiff and Kirby created an ordinary contract of bailment. It came within none of the exceptions that have been made to the general rule that has been stated. No sale at any time or on any terms was in the view of...