Hamill v. Firth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1896, by • plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1892, No. 89, on verdict for defendants. Replevin for cotton goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1896, by • plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1892, No. 89, on verdict for defendants. Replevin for cotton goods. Before Willson, J. Firth v. Hamill, 167 Pa. 388. At the trial it appeared that plaintiffs and defendants were both creditors of the firm of Albert Crenshaw & Co., manufacturers of cotton goods, who failed in the fall of 1892. At the time of their failure a large amount of their goods in course of finishing were in possession of the defendants at their works in Philadelphia, known as the Providence Dye Works. The firm of Crenshaw…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was no error in charging as complained of in the first specification, nor in refusing to charge, as requested in plaintiffs’ point, recited in the second specification, “ that under all the facts in the case the verdict must be for the plaintiffs.” The testimony presented mixed questions of law and fact, and hence it was necessary for the court to submit the evidence to the jury with instructions as to the law applicable to the facts as they might find them. That was fairly and correctly done in part of the charge recited in the first specification. It follows that both…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Carbon Silk Mills Co. v. PowellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939