Warner v. Conn (1943)

Citation: 347 Pa. 617, 32 A.2d 740 (1943). Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Full judicial opinion retrieved October 17, 2026. The Caselaw Access Project file is an unofficial complete reporter reproduction.

Source note (2026-10-18):

• Links on this page to https://static.case.law/f3d/414/cases/0450-01.json, https://static.case.law/pa/347/cases/0617-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

A partnership’s receiver sold printing machinery and equipment at a court-authorized public auction; the court confirmed the sale the following day. The equipment’s third-party bailment lessor had consented to sale while reserving a claim to the goods or proceeds. The court rejected reclaiming goods after agreeing to sell and held that the proceeds claim belonged in the receivership accounting, rather than a separate assumpsit action as of right. Leave to sue elsewhere was discretionary.

The receiver takes the owner’s interest subject to valid liens and encumbrances; appointment itself does not expand the estate. The later full Sovereign Bank v. Schwab, 414 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2005) applies that ownership-limit principle, but its own holding concerns rents and bankruptcy turnover, not a nonconsensual chattel auction.

This is actual pennsylvania state-court chattel-sale implementation with consent, authorization, confirmation and proceeds adjudication. It is not a universal power to extinguish absent or objecting lenders’ interests, nor proof that every state receivership follows identical confirmation requirements.

The text and identified later treatment are verified. Comprehensive subsequent history and other present applications remain needs_verification.

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and later treatment before relying on this decision.