Albright v. Pickle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Replevin for one poplar chest, one pine chest, one feather bed, one chaff bed, and one green bedstead.' The defendant avowed for rent in arrear. The plaintiff replied, that no rent was in arrear. The defendant’s counsel having established the contract to pay the rent, contended, that they were entitled to recover the whole sum, with interest from the time of bringing the suit.
Read the full summary
Replevin for one poplar chest, one pine chest, one feather bed, one chaff bed, and one green bedstead.' The defendant avowed for rent in arrear. The plaintiff replied, that no rent was in arrear. The defendant’s counsel having established the contract to pay the rent, contended, that they were entitled to recover the whole sum, with interest from the time of bringing the suit. The plaintiff’s counsel insisted, that the avowant could only recover the value of the articles distrained, his remedy being by the writ of retorno habendo. The stat. of 17 Car. 2. c. 7, has altered the law in this…
1Opinion of the Court
*By the Court.
The issue joined is, whether any, and 5-* what rent is in arrear: and I do not see how the jury can be prevented from ascertaining it. Whether the verdict can be enforced by execution or otherwise, is another consideration.
The statute of 17 Car. 2. c. 7, extends to cases, where a plaintiff in replevin, whose goods have been distrained for rent, is non-suited before, or after issue joined. The statute does not alter the judgment at common law, but gives a further remedy to the avowant. 2 Wils. 117. Carth. 253. On a verdict for the avow-ant, the jury in that verdict ascertain the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stewart v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Kimmel v. KintSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- McQuesney v. HiesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859