rigor rule in Pennsylvania

1933When a vendee, or a pledgee, takes title to personal property, without taking possession of it, he takes the risk of the integrity and solvency of his vendor, or pledgor, when the rights of subsequent bona fide purchasers, or of levying creditors, arise: White v. Gunn, 205 Pa. 229 [ 54 A. 901 ]”: Bank of N. A. v. Penn M.

1906We agree with his application of the law to the facts of this case as expressed in the following statement; “ While the goods were then in the possession of Jagode and Company, they were in their hands as factors or agents of the Keen-Sutterle Company, and it was entirely competent for the Keen-Sutterle Company to have agreed with the bank at that time that it should have a lien, subject to the factor’s lien of Jagode and Company, upon these goods as security for its debt, and as shown by the cases already cited such an agreement would be valid and enforceable as against the general creditors

1913Bank, 194 Pa. 535 , the Supreme Court, speaking through the late Mr. Justice' Dean, said: "In the eighty years that have elapsed since the decision of Clow v. Woods, 5 S. & R. 275, the rigor of the rule laid down in that case, and it is the leading one in this state, has been greatly relaxed; nor, considering the progress in population and wealth, and the change in methods of conducting business, could it have been strictly adhered to, without great obstruction to business and hardship to individuals.

1903When we said in Keystone Watch Case Co. v. Fourth Street National Bank, 194 Pa. 535 , that the rigor of the rule as laid down in Clow v. Woods, 5 S. & R. 275, which requires the purchaser of personal property to take and retain possession of it, had been greatly relaxed, we did not say, nor intend to say, that the rule itself is not still the law.

2014Id.

2014Id.

1954The rigor of the rule as adopted in Connecticut is best evidenced by the situation disclosed in the case of Warner v. Willoughby, 60 Conn. 468 .

1941N. C. 526; at least where the rules of court have been complied with: Meckes v. Pocono Mountain Water Supply Co., 203 Pa. 13 .

1910In one of the latest cases on the subject, the rule was thus stated by Mr. Justice Brown, “When a purchase is made in good faith, the fair and honest purpose of the vendor and vendee will not be defeated, if the conduct of the parties' shows that there was an intention to trans fer the possession as well as the title, and the vendee assumes such control of the property as ought reasonably to indicate a change of ownership: White v. Gunn, 205 Pa. 229 : ” Kimelewski v. Com., 39 Pa. Superior Ct. 308 .

1906We agree with his application of the law to the facts of this case as expressed in the following statement; “ While the goods were then in the possession of Jagode and Company, they were in their hands as factors or agents of the Keen-Sutterle Company, and it was entirely competent for the Keen-Sutterle Company to have agreed with the bank at that time that it should have a lien, subject to the factor’s lien of Jagode and Company, upon these goods as security for its debt, and as shown by the cases already cited such an agreement would be valid and enforceable as against the general creditors

1903What, however, would be a sufficient delivery of possession and retention of it in one case might not be in another; and in saying that the rigor of the rule requiring the purchaser to take and keep possession of property purchased by him has been relaxed, nothing more was meant than that the law does not have or set up an unbending test of the sufficiency of delivery and retention of possession to be applied to all cases, but that, in passing upon the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser in any particular case, there must be taken into consideration the character of the property,

1903It is as true now as it was when the rule was announced in that case, nearly a century ago, that, if a purchaser pays the price for goods purchased by him, without taking possession of them, he takes the risk of the integrity and solvency of his vendor when the rights of a subsequent bona fide purchaser or an execution creditor arise : Stephens v. Gifford, 137 Pa. 219 .

1903What, however, would be a sufficient delivery of possession and retention of it in one case might not be in another; and in saying that the rigor of the rule requiring the purchaser to take and keep possession of property purchased by him has been relaxed, nothing more was meant than that the law does not have or set up an unbending test of the sufficiency of delivery and retention of possession to be applied to all cases, but that, in passing upon the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser in any particular case, there must be taken into consideration the character of the property,

1903What, however, would be a sufficient delivery of possession and retention of it in one case might not be in another; and in saying that the rigor of the rule requiring the purchaser to take and keep possession of property purchased by him has been relaxed, nothing more was meant than that the law does not have or set up an unbending test of the sufficiency of delivery and retention of possession to be applied to all cases, but that, in passing upon the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser in any particular case, there must be taken into consideration the character of the property,

1903What, however, would be a sufficient delivery of possession and retention of it in one case might not be in another; and in saying that the rigor of the rule requiring the purchaser to take and keep possession of property purchased by him has been relaxed, nothing more was meant than that the law does not have or set up an unbending test of the sufficiency of delivery and retention of possession to be applied to all cases, but that, in passing upon the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser in any particular case, there must be taken into consideration the character of the property,

1903What, however, would be a sufficient delivery of possession and retention of it in one case might not be in another; and in saying that the rigor of the rule requiring the purchaser to take and keep possession of property purchased by him has been relaxed, nothing more was meant than that the law does not have or set up an unbending test of the sufficiency of delivery and retention of possession to be applied to all cases, but that, in passing upon the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser in any particular case, there must be taken into consideration the character of the property,

1891The ruling in Davis v. Moss, supra, was the first step in the transition from the doctrine of Ken-rick v. Smick, supra, to the now well-settled rule laid down in Galey v. Kellerman, 123 Pa. 491 , and Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, where the principle is established that, where the condition appears to have been inserted solely in the interest of the lessor, the lease is void upon the breach, if the lessor, by some positive act, elects to take advantage of it.

1891But, as we said in Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, the rigor of the rule was relaxed in Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. 346 , where the forfeiture was said to depend upon the terms of the instrument, “ unless there be evidence to affect the landlord with a waiver of the breach, like the receipt of rent, or other equally une quivocal act,” in which case the lease may be continued at the instance oí the lessee.

1891But, as we said in Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, the rigor of the rule was relaxed in Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. 346 , where the forfeiture was said to depend upon the terms of the instrument, “ unless there be evidence to affect the landlord with a waiver of the breach, like the receipt of rent, or other equally une quivocal act,” in which case the lease may be continued at the instance oí the lessee.

1891The ruling in Davis v. Moss, supra, was the first step in the transition from the doctrine of Ken-rick v. Smick, supra, to the now well-settled rule laid down in Galey v. Kellerman, 123 Pa. 491 , and Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, where the principle is established that, where the condition appears to have been inserted solely in the interest of the lessor, the lease is void upon the breach, if the lessor, by some positive act, elects to take advantage of it.

1891The ruling in Davis v. Moss, supra, was the first step in the transition from the doctrine of Ken-rick v. Smick, supra, to the now well-settled rule laid down in Galey v. Kellerman, 123 Pa. 491 , and Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, where the principle is established that, where the condition appears to have been inserted solely in the interest of the lessor, the lease is void upon the breach, if the lessor, by some positive act, elects to take advantage of it.

1891The ruling in Davis v. Moss, supra, was the first step in the transition from the doctrine of Ken-rick v. Smick, supra, to the now well-settled rule laid down in Galey v. Kellerman, 123 Pa. 491 , and Wills v. Natural Gas Co., supra, where the principle is established that, where the condition appears to have been inserted solely in the interest of the lessor, the lease is void upon the breach, if the lessor, by some positive act, elects to take advantage of it.