Rickard v. Major
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1906, No. 40, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John B. Rickard and Edith L. Rickard v. A. L. Major. Replevin for one team of bay horses, one set of double harness and one lumber wagon.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1906, No. 40, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of John B. Rickard and Edith L. Rickard v. A. L. Major. Replevin for one team of bay horses, one set of double harness and one lumber wagon. Before Wheaton, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. fErrnr assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
This action of replevin was begun on January 31, 1906. By the writ issued on that day the sheriff was commanded to replevy “ one team of bay horses, one set of double harness and one lumber wagon,” of the value, etc. To this writ the sheriff returned: “ I hereby certify and return that on February 1, 1906, I replevied as within commanded and summoned the within named defendant. . . . On February 1, 1906, a claim property bond was filed, and property so replevied delivered to the defendant.”
The plaintiffs then filed their statement of claim, under the act of 1901, setting…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Knowles v. LordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Dixon v. White Sewing M. Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1889
- Harlan v. HarlanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Mentz v. HammanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Bennethum v. Bowers, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.