Braunn & Fitts v. Keally

Citations

• 146 Pa. 519
• 23 A. 389
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1257

Syllabus

<p>(a) Plaintiffs, manufacturers in Chicago, 111., shipped oleomargarine to the defendant “ at factory prices in the city of Chicago, less live per cent, defendant paying freight at Pittsburgh, Pa., the point of delivery, and the defendant to receive for his services whatever price he could obtain above the bill price and freight.”</p> <p>1. The contract was a contract of sale, not of agency; and being made and executed on delivery to the carrier in Illinois, where the vendor lost his</p> <p>. control over the goods, the agreed price was recoverable from the defendant in this state, notwithstanding the prohibitive provisions of the act of May 21, 1885, P. L. 22.</p> <p>2. Knowledge that the defendant might, or even that he intended to violate tiie laws of this state, could not vitiate a contract made and executed in another state. The dominion of the vendor ceased before there was any violation of the law of Pennsylvania, and even the purchaser then had the locus pcBnitentias.</p> <p>3. An averment that the plaintiffs violated an agreement to give the defendant the exclusive sales-agency, and afterwards adjusted the damages therefrom by agreeing to a certain deduction from their claim, without averring that the goods sued for were bought on the faith of the agreed agency and remained unsold, set forth no defence: Luddington v. North, 141 Pa. 184, distinguished.</p>