Glasgow v. Hill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 18, April T., 1905, by Hill Ice Manufacturing Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1901, No. 799, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Andrew E. Glasgow v. Samuel W. Hill. Replevin to recover chattels. Before Frazer, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Errors assigned amongst others were (1) in refusing binding instructions for the Hill Manufacturing Company.
1Opinion of the Court
Obinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff brought an action of replevin against S. W. *224Hill for a steam engine, dynamo and pump. Tlie Hill Ice Manufacturing Company, a corporation, alleged title to the property, was granted leave to intervene and became a party defendant. The defendants did not file a bond, and the property was delivered to and remained in possession of the plaintiff. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the Hill Ice Manufacturing Company appeals. The plaintiff alleged title to the chattels acquired through a sale, under a judgment of the circuit court…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- National Bank v. NorthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Ott v. SweatmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Schmaltz v. York Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Morris's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Vail v. WeaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re Highland Silk Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1929
- Union Bldg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. PennellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1935
- In re BeegDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1911