Martin v. Stong
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 170, Oet. T., 1907, by Richard Zirkman and Charles Kurtzhals, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1906, No. 49, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Alexander Martin v. John Stong, Beech Stong, Richard Zirkman and Charles Kurtzhals. Replevin to recover a mare. Before Butler, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 170, Oet. T., 1907, by Richard Zirkman and Charles Kurtzhals, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1906, No. 49, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Alexander Martin v. John Stong, Beech Stong, Richard Zirkman and Charles Kurtzhals. Replevin to recover a mare. Before Butler, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $89.67. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
In this action of replevin the title and right of possession of a certain mare were involved. The evidence clearly establishes that the plaintiff was the owner of the mare for many years, and that on March 27, 1905, he delivered possession of her to James Torrence, under a written bailment. Under certain contingencies, specified in the bailment, Torrence was to return the mare to the plaintiff. Instead of doing this Torrence fraudulently disposed of the mare and left the country. The evidence clearly establishes the fact that the defendants had no title to the mare, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Diller v. BrubakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Brubaker v. OkesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Helser v. McGrathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Patterson v. LytleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- Medoff v. EffenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915