National Cash Register Co. v. Shurber

Citations

• 41 Pa. Super. 187
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>Bailment — Lease—Conditional sale.</p> <p>1. A writing designated as a “ lease ” of a machine will be construed to be a bailment and not a conditional sale, where it appears that the bailees as stipulated in the writing deposited a stated amount as partial security for the fulfillment of the agreement, which was to be returned to them upon the surrender of the machine provided the terms of the lease had been complied with; that they gave their promissory note as collateral for the rent payable in seven monthly installments, that the aggregate amount of this note and the deposit was the agreed value of the machine; and that the agreement gave the lessees the option, after the expiration of the lease and the surrender of the chattel to purchase the chattel upon payment of the amount deposited as partial security.</p> <p>2. In such a ease the superadded agreement that should the machine get out of order from ordinary use at any time within two years from the date of shipment, the bailor would repair the same gratis, does not have the effect to convert the transaction into a sale.</p> <p>3. The fact that the original intention of the parties is to make a sale, and that such is the legal effect of their first agreement, does not prevent a change while it is still executory, into a bailment with an alternative of future conversion into a sale on the compliance with the stipulated conditions.</p> <p>Estoppel — Estoppel in pais — Equitable estoppel.</p> <p>4. An estoppel in pais does not operate in favor of everybody. In general it operates only in the favor of a person for whom it was intended, and who has been misled to his injury; and he only can set it up.</p> <p>5. Where there is an attempt to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel, one essential is that the party in whose favor it is invoked must himself act in good faith.</p> <p>6. In an action of replevin it appeared that the plaintiff had leased a chattel, and that the defendant had purchased the chattel at a