Singerly v. Fox
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 219, of January Term 1874. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced March 8th 1870, by Mahlon Eox against Joseph Singerly.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 219, of January Term 1874. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced March 8th 1870, by Mahlon Eox against Joseph Singerly. The cause of action arose under the following circumstances: The firm of Grim & Brother being engaged in brickmaking in Philadelphia, and being the lessee of the brick-yard-from the defendant; Peter Grim, one of the partners, filed a bill in equity against his copartners, and the plaintiff was appointed receiver. Under an order of court, the plaintiff as receiver sold the personal property of the firm at public sale on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 19th 1874, by
Gordon, J.
It is no doubt law that a receiver has no legal title in the assets which he is appointed to collect, and that without authority from the court he cannot maintain trover where they have been wrongfully converted previously to his possession: Yeager v. Wallace, 8 Wright 294. But where the goods have actually come into his possession it can hardly be contended that he could not maintain this action against one who wrongfully invaded such possession and converted the goods committed to his caro. Were such not the case he…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Rosenblum v. UberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1919
- In Re Pressed Steel Car Co. of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1938
- Commonwealth v. Guardian Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Kuebler v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910