Bogert v. Batterton
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 251, in favor of defendants, on case tried before a judge without a jury. Replevin for sewing machine. Before Ghhster, J., of the 45th judicial district specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1891, No. 251, in favor of defendants, on case tried before a judge without a jury. Replevin for sewing machine. Before Ghhster, J., of the 45th judicial district specially presiding. By agreement of the parties a trial by jury was dispensed with and the case was submitted to the decision of the court under the act of April 22, 1874. The following material facts were found by the court: John Essling rented on May 8,1891, a certain house in Wilkes-Barre from D. L. O’Neill for a certain term at the rate of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The sewing machine in question was not exempt from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent under the act of *474'April 17, 1869, because it did not belong to a seamstress. It •was not exempt under the Act of March 4, 1870, P. L. 35, as the property of the plaintiff, because that act expressly excepts •'from its operation “persons who keep sewing machines for sale or hire.” Nor is he in a position to claim that it was exempt as the property of the lessee. The latter had left it upon the premises from which he had removed and made no claim of ownership, or demand to have it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rosenberger v. HallowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- Walsh v. The BourseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Lengert Co. v. Building & Loan Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. James, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1929