Walter v. Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 187, Jan. T., 1892, by defendants, Jones & Skinner and others, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1891, No. 110, on verdict for plaintiff, William H. Walter, administrator of the estate of Ellen Ludwig, deceased. Sheriff’s interpleader.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 187, Jan. T., 1892, by defendants, Jones & Skinner and others, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1891, No. 110, on verdict for plaintiff, William H. Walter, administrator of the estate of Ellen Ludwig, deceased. Sheriff’s interpleader. On the trial, before Rice, P. J., it appeared that the goods levied upon as the property of Max Ludwig, the defendant in the execution, had been once his property, but had been sold by the sheriff, under an execution against him, to one Holden, who assigned to Sutter, who assigned to Ellen Ludwig, the wife of the defendant, taking in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was a feigned issue, under what is known as the sheriff’s interpleader act. The only specification is, that the court erred in refusing to charge the jur}*- as requested in the defendants’ fourth point, which was as follows: “ Under all the testimony in the case, the verdict should be for the defendant.” The affirmance of this point would have withdrawn the case from the jury, which could not properly have been done under the evidence. There was nothing to impeach the bona fides of the judgment upon which the execution was issued, or the validity of the sheriff’s sale. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Real Estate Inv. Co. v. RoopSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stephan v. HudockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Frost v. KnappSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- McCord v. WhitacreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Fritchey Lumber Co. v. B. F. Isenberg Milling Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902