Hirsh v. Wenger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 426, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 55, on sheriff's interpleader. Sheriff’s interpleader. Before Liyingston, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 426, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 55, on sheriff's interpleader. Sheriff’s interpleader. Before Liyingston, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial, after plaintiffs’ judgment of $7,240 had been introduced hi evidence, defendants proposed to ask A. Hirsh whether or not his son, Benjamin W. Hirsh, was indebted to him on April 4,1893, or on November 11, 1893, in the sum of $7,240 or any portion thereof. Objected to by plaintiffs. Disallowed. Defendants except and bill sealed. [2] Defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
These were issues under the sheriff’s interpleader act. The facts which gave rise to them are substantially as follows : B. W. Hirsh was the proprietor of a livery stable. D. H. Wenger & Brother and Christian Reedmiller were dealers infeed, and had been supplying Hirsh with feed for his horses. Finding that they could obtain neither payment of, nor security for, their bills they brought action against him on the 9th day of November, 1893. Judgments were recovered in these actions on the 25th of the same month; that in favor of Wenger & Brother being for $980.44,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Glessner v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. HogeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Allen v. LineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899