Bretz v. Diehl

Citations

• 117 Pa. 589
• 11 A. 893
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 446

Syllabus

<p>1. The fundamental distinction between a bailment and sale is, that in the former, the subject of the contract, although in an altered form, is to be restored to the owner, whilst in the latter there is no obligation to return the specific article or its product.</p> <p>2. If a miller, with whom is bailed the wheat of others, so commingles it with his own that the identity cannot be traced, the inconvenience of the confusion is thrown upon him; where, however, the owners have assented to the commingling, each rem.ains the owner of his share in the mass.</p> <p>3. When wheat is delivered on a contract of bailment, the mere fact that it is mixed with a mass of like quality, with the knowledge of the bailor, does not convert the transaction into a sale; and the bailee of the mass can have no greater control than if the share of each owner were kept separate.</p> <p>4. In such ease, if the commingled mass was received on simple storage, each owner is entitled on demand to receive his share; if for conversion into flour, each is entitled to his share of the product.</p> <p>5. And, even though the bailee have contributed of his own wheat to the commingled mass, standing still as a bailee for the share of others, he may not abstract from the whole more than his own share.</p> <p>■6. Where points presented are based upon an assumption of facts, the truth or falsity of which from the evidence- was properly before the jury, answers thereto stating the law as upon a finding of such facts will not be held to have been misleading.</p>