Stiles v. Griffith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mr. Ingersoll, in behalf of the city corporation, moved to quash this replevin, issued for goods seized in execution for the water tax. objected thereto. If the motion is made under the act of 3d April 1779, (1 Dali. St. Laws, 796,). the words are “all writs of replevin granted or issued,” &c. in the past tense, and relate only to replevins taken out before the act was passed.
Read the full summary
Mr. Ingersoll, in behalf of the city corporation, moved to quash this replevin, issued for goods seized in execution for the water tax. objected thereto. If the motion is made under the act of 3d April 1779, (1 Dali. St. Laws, 796,). the words are “all writs of replevin granted or issued,” &c. in the past tense, and relate only to replevins taken out before the act was passed. When the legislature in the 5th section mean to guard against the entry of judgments, and issuing of attachments or executions against persons attainted of treason in future cases, they use proper words for that…
1Opinion of the Court
[Per cur.
The words “granted or issued,” refer in point to time, to the motion to quash the replevins, and which they must necessarily precede.]
The words of the 3d section, are “ goods or chattels seized, “by any constable, collector of the public taxes, or other officer, “acting under the authority of the state,” &c. Corporation taxes are not included herein.
[Per cur. Are not the city assessments public taxes.]
If an inferior jurisdiction issues an execution, a replevin will lie for the goods taken by that execution. Gilb. Dist. aird Rep. 122. Thus in a replevin, the defendant was put to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- King v. RichardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- LeRoy v. East Saginaw City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Weaver v. LawrenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1785
- Power v. KindschiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- York v. MarshallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.