Hamill v. Firth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 6, 1896

Hamill v. Firth, 175 Pa. 46 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 211; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1204

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

There was no error in charging as complained of in the first specification, nor in refusing to charge, as requested in plaintiffs’ point, recited in the second specification, “ that under all the facts in the case the verdict must be for the plaintiffs.” The testimony presented mixed questions of law and fact, and hence it was necessary for the court to submit the evidence to the jury with instructions as to the law applicable to the facts as they might find them. That was fairly and correctly done in part of the charge recited in the first specification. It follows that both specifications of error should be dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Hugh J. Hamill and James G. Carson v. Thomas Firth, Joseph R. Foster and John H. Foster, trading as Firth & Foster Brothers
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Bailment — Lien—Locatio operis — Agreement—Question for jury. Goods were received by a dyer upon the following condition': “All goods received only upon condition that they are subject to a general lien, not only for the dyeing and furnishing thereof, but also for the balance of any former account due.” The evidence tended to show that there was a course of dealing between the dyer and C. & Co., by which C. & Co. paid for goods dyed- after thirty or sixty days, and that there was constant shifting, new goods coming in to take the place of those which were taken away. Held, (1) that it was proper to leave to the jury to determine whether the giving of time was under an agreement by which the customer had an absolute right to take away all his goods, and not to pay for them until the expiration of a specified time, or whether the giving of the time simply related to the bills for those goods which the dyer chose to deliver without enforcing his specific lien, and in reliance upon the general lien given him on the balance of the goods in his hands for the entire amount due him; (2) that it was not error for the court to charge that the dyer did not lose his lien by occasionally or frequently or habitually allowing C. & Co. to take away goods and pay for them after thirty or sixty days, if the course of business was that there was a constant shifting, new goods coming in to take the place of those which were taken away.