Dutilh v. Ritchie

by Supreme Court of the United States

COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia

County.

June Term, 1786.

---

DUTILH verʃus RITCHIE.

T

HIS was a Replevin for divers goods, wares &c. and property was pleaded in Andrew Clow, and others, affignees for the benefit of the defendant's creditors.

The facts were thefe:–The Defendant had bought certain goods, for which he gave a promiffory note, that was afterwards indorfed to the plaintiff, who went (probably by defire of the Payee) to purchafe goods from the defendant on the 8th of April 1785, about five o'clock in the afternoon. He told the Defendant, on entering his fhop, that the came to take goods in payment of the note, and the defendant (whofe attention was taken up, at the fame time, by feveral other cuftomers) handed him fuch articles as he pointed out, mentioning their refpective prices. The Plaintiff marked thofe pieces which he approved of, and laid them on one fide of the counter, ‘till he thought he had chofen fufficient to anfwer the note, and then informing the defendant that he would go for a porter to remove them, he left the fhop without receiving a bill of parcells, or ftipulating a time of payment, or tendering the promiffory note to the defendant. Immediately after the Plaintiff had left the fhop, the defendant fhut

it up, and called a meeting of his creditors; for whoſe benefits, the next morning, and before this Replevin was ſerved, he executed an abridgment of all his property.

It was hold by the Court, that the property in the goods for which the Replevin iſſued, was not veſted in the Plaintiff; and the Jury found a verdict accordingly for the Defendant.

Moylan for the Plaintiff.– Mulegan and Rawle for the Defendant.