Ott v. Sweatman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 6, Juljr T., 1894, by plaintiff, ¿rom judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 212, on a verdict for the defendant. Sheriff’s interpleader. Before Jenkins, J. [3 Dist.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 6, Juljr T., 1894, by plaintiff, ¿rom judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 212, on a verdict for the defendant. Sheriff’s interpleader. Before Jenkins, J. [3 Dist. B. 573-] The facts appear by the following opinion of the court below, on a motion for a new trial, bjr Jenkins, J. : “This was a feigned issue upon a sheriff’s interpleader, founded on an execution issued by Virtue C. Sweatman, the defendant, against Lorenz Leiling, George F. Ott being the claimant. On the trial of the case, it appeared from the evidence produced by tlie claimant that upon Sept. 21,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The learned trial judge rightly held that the agreements, between Leiling and Ott constituted a conditional sale and pot a bailment; and hence there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant in the issue. All that can be profitably said on the controlling question in the case will be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the court below' on the rule for a new trial. On it we affirm the judgment.
2Cited by36 opinions
- Schmaltz v. York Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HartmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Clipper Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- John Deere Plow Co. v. HersheySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Goss Printing Press Co. v. JordanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.