Enterprise Wall Paper Co. v. Rantoul Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Enterprise Wall Paper Co. v. Rantoul Co., 260 Pa. 540 (Pa. 1918)
103 A. 923; 1918 Pa. LEXIS 563
Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
Enterprise Wall Paper Co. v. Rantoul Co.
Opinion of the Court
Until the paper manufactured by the Marley Mills Corporation under its contract of May 13,1916, with the appellant, the Enterprise Wall Paper Company, was actually delivered to that company, it was clearly liable to seizure by execution creditors of the corporation, for the law will not permit any device to elude the principle which forbids a lien to be created on chattels as a security separate from their possession: Jenkins v. Eichelberger, 4 Watts 121; Prichett et al. v. Cook, 62 Pa. 193. The judgment for the defendant in the feigned issue, having been properly entered non obstante veredicto, is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contracts — Sales—Construction — Agreement to soil output of manufacturing plant — Furnishing of raw materials by purchaser— Levy by creditor — Sheriff’s interpleader by purchaser — Judgment for defendant n. o. v. 1. The law will not permit any device to elude the principle which forbids a lien to be created on chattels as a security separate from their possession. 2. A wall paper company and a manufacturing company entered into an agreement under which the latter was to “sell and deliver,” and the former to “buy and pay for” the entire output of the manufacturing company’s plant at certañi prices for a period of one year; the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of such paper were to be ordered by the manufacturing company, billed to the wall paper company and the latter was to pay therefor, and payments were to be credited to the account of the wall paper company “against the deliveries of paper”-; wages for the production of such paper were to be paid with money furnished by the wall paper company upon receipt of certified pay rolls for same; and all raw materials purchased under such agreement .were to remain the property of the wall paper company, but the contract was pilent as to the title to the manufactured product. While the companies were operating under this agreement a creditor of the manufacturing company levied on the manufactured paper and raw material in the manufacturing company’s plant. The amount of such creditors' claims was less than tbe appraised value of tbe manufactured paper. Held, tbe title to tbe manufactured product was in tbe manufacturing company and judgment was properly entered non obstante veredicto in favor of tbe execution creditor.