Caldcleugh v. Hollingsworth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. This was an action of trover brought by Mark Hollingsworth, who survived Edmund Tiliston, late copartners under the firm of Tiliston and Hollingsworth, against Robert A. Caldcleugh, to recover the value of a paper machine or roller.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. This was an action of trover brought by Mark Hollingsworth, who survived Edmund Tiliston, late copartners under the firm of Tiliston and Hollingsworth, against Robert A. Caldcleugh, to recover the value of a paper machine or roller. It appeared that the machine in question was consigned by the plaintiffs, living in Boston, to a firm in Philadelphia, by whom it was sent in 1840 to M’Ewen, a machinist, in whose shop it remained a year and a half or two years without undergoing any repairs, no instructions having been given for…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
Walter v. Rumball is in point that the notice may be given to the tenant or the owner, at the landlord’s discretion ; and that when it has been given to the latter, he cannot maintain trover. The principal object of notice is to enable, and indeed compel the proper party to contest the legality of the distress before the property is sold, and thus to prevent the landlord from being involved in unforeseen difficulties. By the letter of the English statute, he is directed to give it to the tenant; yet in the case cited, it was held to be…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Esterly Machine Co. v. SpencerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Brown v. StackhouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Manegold v. QuinnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Lundberg v. HemphillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Tinware Manufacturing Co. v. DuffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.