Hamill v. Firth

Citations

• 175 Pa. 46
• 34 A. 211
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1204

Syllabus

<p>Bailment — Lien—Locatio operis — Agreement—Question for jury.</p> <p>Goods were received by a dyer upon the following condition': “All goods received only upon condition that they are subject to a general lien, not only for the dyeing and furnishing thereof, but also for the balance of any former account due.” The evidence tended to show that there was a course of dealing between the dyer and C. & Co., by which C. & Co. paid for goods dyed- after thirty or sixty days, and that there was constant shifting, new goods coming in to take the place of those which were taken away. Held, (1) that it was proper to leave to the jury to determine whether the giving of time was under an agreement by which the customer had an absolute right to take away all his goods, and not to pay for them until the expiration of a specified time, or whether the giving of the time simply related to the bills for those goods which the dyer chose to deliver without enforcing his specific lien, and in reliance upon the general lien given him on the balance of the goods in his hands for the entire amount due him; (2) that it was not error for the court to charge that the dyer did not lose his lien by occasionally or frequently or habitually allowing C. & Co. to take away goods and pay for them after thirty or sixty days, if the course of business was that there was a constant shifting, new goods coming in to take the place of those which were taken away.</p>