Yeager v. Cassidy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 156, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1897, No. 47, on verdict for plaintiff. Replevin. Before Landis, J. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court below refusing motion for a new trial, which was as follows: The defendant’s counsel have assigned ten reasons why a new trial should not be granted in the above case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 156, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1897, No. 47, on verdict for plaintiff. Replevin. Before Landis, J. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court below refusing motion for a new trial, which was as follows: The defendant’s counsel have assigned ten reasons why a new trial should not be granted in the above case. We do not think any of them should be sustained, but they are, nevertheless, entitled to the careful consideration of the court. In weighing them, however, it is necessary to keep in mind all the facts proven…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was an action of replevin for a crop of wheat. The plaintiff claimed it by virtue of the provisions of his lease from Mary Yeager, the owner of the land. The defendant claimed it as the administrator of William Cassidy, who obtained title to the land from A. L. Herr who had bought the same at sheriff’s sale on November 14, 1890, under an execution against Mary Yeager. The facts, out of which the main questions to be decided on this appeal arose, are so clearly stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, refusing a new trial, that we adopt his statement…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. Trinity ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Gallagher v. SternSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Winans v. BunnellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900