Substantial B. L. Assn. v. N.C.T. Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Pennsylvania Rr. Co. v. Brownstein

    125 A.2d 618 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    The record fails to disclose that defendants knew or should have known that O'Neal may have been using his position on this last occasion for his own fraudulent purposes as plaintiff contends. Between United Sales and Equipment Company and defendants, O'Neal had at least the apparent authority to act as he did. SubstantialBuilding and Loan Association v. Real Estate Title Insurance Trust Company of Philadelphia, 82 Pa. Super. 211, 214; Substantial Building and Loan Association v. Northern CentralTrust Company, 88 Pa. Super. 10, 13, 14. There was no intervening innocent holder of either bill of lading at the time of delivery to defendants. It is permissible to conclude that Harpool Bros. had been eliminated as we have previously indicated. The only other parties having any possible right to possession at the time of delivery were the United Sales and Equipment Company and defendants; and on the basis of the agency of O'Neal defendants would have the superior right.