Shive v. Finn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL, BY DEPENDANTS PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 244 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 279 December Term 1881, C. P. No. 1. On February 11, 1882, a rule for a sheriff’s interpleader was made absolute, Abel P. Shive, the claimant of goods levied upon as the property of Shive Brothers, saloon-keepers, being made plaintiff, and J. C. and V. B. Finn, trading as J. C. Finn & Son, execution creditors, being made defendants. Issue.
Read the full summary
APPEAL, BY DEPENDANTS PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 244 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 279 December Term 1881, C. P. No. 1. On February 11, 1882, a rule for a sheriff’s interpleader was made absolute, Abel P. Shive, the claimant of goods levied upon as the property of Shive Brothers, saloon-keepers, being made plaintiff, and J. C. and V. B. Finn, trading as J. C. Finn & Son, execution creditors, being made defendants. Issue. At the trial on October 25, 1886, the plaintiff, claimant of the goods, introduced testimony to the effect that on June…
1Per curiam
The personal property levied upon, and which is involved in this sheriff’s interpleader, was purchased by the plaintiff below at a sheriff’s sale, and subsequently leased by him to Shive Brothers, the defendants in the execution. Upon the trial below, an agreement in writing was put in evidence by which it appeared that the said personal property was purchased for the joint benefit of the plaintiff and one Samuel Humphrey, who also had an execution against Shive Brothers, and that by said agreement the plaintiff was to pay over to Mr. Humphrey one sixth of the rent received for the use of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Shafer v. SensemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Rush v. VoughtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Van Winkle v. Young & KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell v. ClevenstineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892