Redfield & Rice Manufacturing Co. v. Dysart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 5th 1869. Before Thompson, O. J., Read, Agnew, Sharswood and Williams, JJ. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 59, to May Term 1869. This was an issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, in which Robert M. Dysart was claimant and plaintiff, and the Redfield and Rice Manufacturing Company were defendants.
Read the full summary
May 5th 1869. Before Thompson, O. J., Read, Agnew, Sharswood and Williams, JJ. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 59, to May Term 1869. This was an issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, in which Robert M. Dysart was claimant and plaintiff, and the Redfield and Rice Manufacturing Company were defendants. It was entered February 14th 1867, to try the ownership of goods levied upon, under the execution of the company, as the property of James P. Dysart. The foundation of the claimant’s title was the following bill of sale: “ Know all men by these presents, that I,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Williams, J.
This was an issue, under the Sheriff’s Inter-
pleader Act, to determine whether or not the goods levied on by the sheriff of Lancaster county under an execution at the suit of the Redfield & Bice Manufacturing Company against James P. Dysart, on the 19th of January 1867, belonged to Robert M. Dysart, the claimant, at the time they were seized by the sheriff. The only question presented for consideration by the assignments of error is, was the evidence given by the claimant sufficient to justify the court in submitting the question of his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rogers v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Streeper v. EckartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
3Cited by3 opinions
- Orr v. PetersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Ball v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Graybill v. Goodman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1931