Case Name: Potter, Appellant, v. Ketterlinus
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1908-04-27
Citations: 221 Pa. 35
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 147
Parties: Potter, Appellant, v. Ketterlinus.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Potter, Appellant, v. Ketterlinus.
Bailment — Pledge—Trover and conversion — Assignment of debt.
In an action of trespass for conversion where the plaintiff charges that the defendant had sold certain property which the plaintiff had pledged with him as collateral for debt, in violation of the stipulated conditions of the pledge, a nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence shows that the defendant had not sold the collateral, but had merely assigned the debt to another, and with it his rights over the collateral.
Argued Jan. 9, 1908.
April 27, 1908:
Appeal, No. 147, Jan. T., 1907, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 147, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of 'Genevieve E. Potter v. John Ketterlinus, trading as Ketterlinus Printing House.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass for conversion. Before Brégy, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The court entertained a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Joseph E. Sagebeer, with him Frank B. Ellis, for appellant.
John Gf. Johnson, with him James Wilson Bayard, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff declared in trespass (trover) for the conversion of certain stereotype plates, the property of plaintiff, which had been pledged with defendant as collateral security for a debt due him by plaintiff with authority to sell in one of several specified ways, but which plaintiff declared had been sold in disregard of the stipulated conditions. But the plaintiff failed in the proof. All that was shown by the evidence was that the appellee had assigned the debt to him and with it his rights over the collateral. The plates ultimately came into the possession of appellant and the learned judge below was of opinion that no damage had been proved. However this may be, the gist of the action was the conversion and as no conversion was shown the nonsuit was proper.
Judgment affirmed.