· 4/30/1894

Harrington v. Bronson

Citations

161 Pa. 296
29 A. 30
1894 Pa. LEXIS 689

Syllabus

Sheriff's sale — Fraud—Retention of property by defendant in execution— Agency — Duty to inquire as to extent of. Where a person purchases at sheriff’s sale the personal property on a farm and in a store, and leaves the defendant in the execution in possession to conduct the farm and run the store as his agent, the purchaser is answerable as principal to all persons dealing or bargaining with the defendant in the execution to whom it is not known that the ieal arrangement between the parties is that the defendant in the execution shall use the property for his own benefit, until, if possible, he can pay for it. Personal property on a farm and in a store were bought at sheriff’s sale by a friend of the defendant in the execution, upon the understanding that the defendant’s wife should be allowed to retain possession, and conduct the farm and store until the purchase money could be repaid. Defendant’s son, a boy sixteen years of age, was living with his parents at the time of the sale, and he continued to live with them and work on the farm until he was of age. He testified that when he was of' age he told his mother he was going to leave, and she promised him that if he would stay she would give him a farm, or that the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, for whom she was agent, would pay him for his work; that upon this promise he continued working upon the farm. The son testified that he knew nothing of the real arrangement between the purchaser and his parents. There was evidence, however, that he became indebted to the purchaser on another account and paid the debt. In an action by the son against the purchaser: Held (1) that the case should be submitted to the jury, and (2) that there was no duty on plaintiff to inquire into the extent of his mother’s authority as agent. Evidence — Declarations. In the above case declarations of the mother made before her death, denying her agency, but not made at the time the contract was made, to pla

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a state police vehicle, temporarily parked in the passing lane of an interstate highway while the officer inside the vehicle investigated an accident, was not in operation at the time another vehicle struck a person obtaining flares from the police vehicle's trunk
holding that a state police vehicle, temporarily parked in the passing lane of an interstate highway while the officer inside the vehicle investigated an accident, was not in operation at the time another vehicle struck a person obtaining flares from the police vehicle’s trunk
observing that, even if the placement of the vehicle may have a causal relationship to the injury, the motor vehicle exception does not apply unless the vehicle is actually in motion at the time of the injury
observing that, even if the placement of the vehicle may have a causal relationship to the injury, the motor vehicle exception does not apply unless the vehicle is actually in motion at the time of the injury
state police car, which was temporarily parked in the passing lane of a highway by a state trooper investigating an accident was held not to be in operation
injuries caused by collision with third party when trying to retrieve flares from parked state vehicle not caused by operation of state-owned vehicle; sovereign immunity exception does not apply

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Steerett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.