Miller v. Irvine
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county: Of May Term 1880, No. 141. This was a feigned issue wherein Catharine Miller, Mary Miller and Elizabeth Miller were plaintiffs and J. H. Irvine, cashier, defendant, to try the title to certain personal property levied on by the sheriff as the property of Michael and Theophilus Miller, the defendants in an execution, and claimed by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county: Of May Term 1880, No. 141. This was a feigned issue wherein Catharine Miller, Mary Miller and Elizabeth Miller were plaintiffs and J. H. Irvine, cashier, defendant, to try the title to certain personal property levied on by the sheriff as the property of Michael and Theophilus Miller, the defendants in an execution, and claimed by the plaintiffs. The jury found the following special verdict: That Catharine Miller is the mother of Theophilus and Michael Miller, and that Mary and Elizabeth Miller are the respective wives of the said Theophilus…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The single assignment of error here is that the court below •erred'in entering judgment for the defendant upon the special verdict.
It is not disputed that the sheriff’s sale passed a good title to the personal property in controversy to Kline, the purchaser at said sale. His right to leave it with the defendants in the execution is equally clear: Myers v. Harvey, 2 P. & W. 478; Craig’s Appeal, 27 P. F. Smith 448, and Maynes v. Atwater, 7 Norris 496. The judgment upon which the property was sold was confessed to Kline to secure his own debt, and sundry other debts due by the Miller Brothers,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fudge v. Scholl, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1934
- In re MorleyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1939