Roumfort v. McAlarney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county: Of May Term 1876, No. 104. This was an action of replevin, brought by Roumfort, administrator of W. H. Miller, against J. C. McAlarney, for a law library. The defendant pleaded “ non cepit ” and “ payment,” and when the case was called for trial added a plea of “property.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county: Of May Term 1876, No. 104. This was an action of replevin, brought by Roumfort, administrator of W. H. Miller, against J. C. McAlarney, for a law library. The defendant pleaded “ non cepit ” and “ payment,” and when the case was called for trial added a plea of “property.” It appeared that Miller and McAlarney had been partners in the practice of the law, and that the books in question, which belonged to Miller, had been used by the firm, and upon Miller’s death had remained in the possession of the surviving partner, McAlarney. At the trial the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
At and before the decease of William H. Miller, he and the defendant were partners in the law business, occupying the same office, and, as we understand the evidence and the statements of the parties through their counsel, the property in suit remained in the *197possession of the defendant until the bringing of the present action, and perhaps until this time. The defence rests solely on the ground of title acquired through the sale by Mrs. Miller. Though Mc-Alarney claims to be a creditor of the decedent, yet it is certainly not law that he can on this ground withhold the property in his hands…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hardy v. ThomasMississippi Supreme Court · 1852
- Saam v. SaamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gilfillen's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Bungard v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Cooper v. EyrichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897