Legal Opinion

Peek v. Heim

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 28, 1889No. 85PublishedCited by 13 opinions

ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY. No. 85 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 286 December Term 1888, C. P. On November 14, 1888, a feigned issue was framed, as directed by tlie court, wherein David T. Peek and Geo.

Read the full summary

ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY. No. 85 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 286 December Term 1888, C. P. On November 14, 1888, a feigned issue was framed, as directed by tlie court, wherein David T. Peek and Geo. W. Peek, trading as Peek & Son, were plaintiffs, and D. Heim and Ira T. Clement were defendants, to determine the ownership of seven pianos levied upon by the defendants on writs of fieri facias as the property of F. K. Hill, and claimed by the plaintiffs. At the trial on May 7,1889, the following facts were made to appear: In 1886 F. K. Hill and…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

This was a feigned issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act. The pivotal question is, whether the property levied upon by the sheriff had been consigned to Hill, the defendant in the execution, as the factor or consignee of Peek & Son, to be sold by him on their account, or whether the transaction amounted to a conditional sale with an attempted reservation of a lien for the price. The court below took the latter view of it and instructed the jury accordingly. All of the assignments of error bear upon this point.

We see no error in the ruling of the court. The whole contract…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Forrest v. Nelson Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
  2. Thompson v. Paret & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
  3. Stadtfeld v. Huntsman & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In re WellsDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
  2. Holly Manuf'g Co. v. New Chester Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. L. C. Smith & Bro. Typewriter Co. v. AllemanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
  4. In re Franklin Lumber Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1911
  5. New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1892

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API