Jones v. Shaw
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 52, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 365, on nonsuit entered. Replevin' for horses valued at $700. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff alleged having executed certain promissory notes to a certain man which he alleged were, according to a verbal agreement, to be paid for in work, which work the holder of the notes refused to permit plaintiff to perform.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 52, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 365, on nonsuit entered. Replevin' for horses valued at $700. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff alleged having executed certain promissory notes to a certain man which he alleged were, according to a verbal agreement, to be paid for in work, which work the holder of the notes refused to permit plaintiff to perform. The plaintiff fearing that suit would be brought upon these notes, executed a bill of sale, for certain horses, which bill of sale, although specifying a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This was an action of replevin for four horses. The defendant pleaded property. It appeared on the trial that in August, 1895, the plaintiff, — he being then the owner, and the horses being in the possession of Clark Pettit in the state of New Jersey, — executed and delivered to the defendant a bill of sale under seal. This paper was put in evidence during the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, and as the record does not affirmatively show that it was offered in evidence by the defendant we cannot say that he had debarred himself from moving for a nonsuit by injecting…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Evans v. DravoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
- Winton v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Harbaugh v. ButnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Binkley v. NoltSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911