Hale v. Borough of Ashland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 337, Jan. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 216, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George C. Hale, now to the use of O. C. Wiesner, trading as the George C. Hale Co. v. The Borough of Ashland. Replevin for fire motors. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Bechtel, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 337, Jan. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 216, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George C. Hale, now to the use of O. C. Wiesner, trading as the George C. Hale Co. v. The Borough of Ashland. Replevin for fire motors. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Bechtel, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The lower court entered judgment for the plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
The plaintiff by his action does not seek to impose any liability on the defendant, but merely to establish his right to retain exclusive possession of certain goods and chattels which he recovered out of the possession of the defendant upon a writ of replevin. The action proceeds simply to determine the right of the plaintiff to retain possession of the property he has replevied. Issue was joined in the way pointed out by the statutes. The Act of April, 1901, P. L. 89, provides that in all such cases the declaration and affidavit as originally filed, or as…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hahn v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Gantman v. PaulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Family Budget Plan, Inc. v. Ede, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1955