Ladley v. Creighton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 263, to January Term 1871. On the 21st of July 1866, James Creighton issued a replevin against Joseph Ladley for certain machinery. The defendant gave a claim-property bond and retained the goods.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 263, to January Term 1871. On the 21st of July 1866, James Creighton issued a replevin against Joseph Ladley for certain machinery. The defendant gave a claim-property bond and retained the goods. The cause was tried November 23d 1870, before Thayer, J. Sarah Hirst being owner of the “ White Mill ” in Philadelphia, on the 25th of January 1858, leased the premises to William Divine and William Tomlinson for ten years; the lease was acknowledged October 14th 1859. William Divine afterwards sold his interest in the lease and the machinery to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1872, by
'
Agnew, J.
The principal question in this ease is upon the validity of the mortgage given by William Tomlinson to Hugh Creighton and Joshua Peirce, upon the lease and fixtures of a property known as the White Mills. The objection is, that the lease from Sarah Hirst to William Tonllinson was not recorded with the mortgage. A copy of the lease was appended to the mortgage as a schedule and recorded with it. It is contended that this was not a compliance with the first proviso to the Act of April 27th 1855, § 8, Pamph. L. 368, Purd. 330,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mechanics' Bank v. GormanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clark v. SmallwoodU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York · 1907