U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1821

Veil v. Mitchel

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · Decided April 15, 1821 · Washington

28 F. Cas. 1135; 4 Wash. C. C. 105

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Northrup (District Court, N.D. New York 1907)
Roca v. . Byrne (N.Y. 1895)
Wallace v. Stone (Mich. 1895)
Terry v. Bamberger (Conn. 1877)
Shaw v. Bauman (Ohio 1877)
Van Alen v. American National Bank (N.Y. 1873)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

The cases upon this subject are uniform, in laying down the rule, that where the principal can trace his property into the hands of his agent or factor, whether it be the identical article which first came to the hands of the factor, or other prop*1136erty purchased for the principal by the factor with the proceeds; ha may follow it, either into the hands of the factor, or of his legal representatives, or of his assigns if he should become insolvent or a bankrupt. The factor is a trustee for the principal, so long as he retains the property, or its representative in his hands; and his assignees, or legal representatives take it, subject to the same trust, which they cannot defeat by turning it into money; unless indeed, they should pay it away in their representative character, before notice of the claim. It is in this point of view only, that notice is necessary. Judgment for plaintiffs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.