Legal Opinion

Rockwood and Co. v. Pusey

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 11, 1928No. Appeal 108PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

We agree with the learned court below that set-off is not admissible as a defense in replevin: General Motors Truck Co. v. Philadelphia Paving Co., 248 Pa. 499, 503; National Cash Register Co. v. Cochran, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 582, 586; and that an affidavit of defense in a pending suit in replevin may not be used as a petition for a declaratory judgment under the Act of June 18, 1923, P. L. 840. That act contemplates a distinct proceeding by petition, not the grafting of an application for a declaratory judgment on a pending action at law.

We are not satisfied, however,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. General Motors Truck Co. v. Philadelphia Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  2. National Cash Register Co. v. CochranSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  3. Reinheimer v. HemingwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brandt v. HersheySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. Ungar Buick Co. to Use v. ThumSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Cinardo v. Cinardo, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API