Gould v. Lee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe county. This was an action of replevin, commenced April 9th 1860, by David W. Lee, surviving partner of the firm of Charles M. Leupp & Co., against Jay Gould, for 1200 sides of sole leather. The sheriff returned to the writ, “ replevied and claim property bond given same day.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe county. This was an action of replevin, commenced April 9th 1860, by David W. Lee, surviving partner of the firm of Charles M. Leupp & Co., against Jay Gould, for 1200 sides of sole leather. The sheriff returned to the writ, “ replevied and claim property bond given same day.” The defendant pleaded “ non eepit;” afterwards he pleaded property, and subsequently added the plea “ property in himself and the plaintiff;” also a special plea that on the 21st of August 1860 the plaintiff, by release in writing, and under his seal, released the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1867, by
Woodward, C. J.
— When this case was here in 1864 (11 Wright 402) we decided that, under the original contract between Charles M. Leupp & Co., of one part, and Jay Gould, of the other part, dated February 1st 1859, David W. Lee, as surviving partner of the firm of Leupp & Co., was bailor of the hides in question, and, as such, entitled to maintain replevin for them.
This disposed of the substantial questions in the case, except *108one, which was, whether Gould had been released from liability for the 1200 hides replevied by the agreements…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ranney v. ByersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Powell v. PowellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Daly's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Leggoe v. MayerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Sarver's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.