Durr v. Replogle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 342, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Jan. T., 1894, No. 250, on verdict for plaintiff. Sheriff’s interpleader to determine the ownership of certain machinery.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 342, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Jan. T., 1894, No. 250, on verdict for plaintiff. Sheriff’s interpleader to determine the ownership of certain machinery. Before Archbald, P. J. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff, reserving the following question, in which the facts appear: “On June 12, 1893, Nicholas Kiefer on the one side and Walter D. Frank and Frank Leader on the other, entered into an agreement which reads as follows: “ ‘ Memorandum of agreement made this twelfth day of June, A. D., 1893, between Nicholas Kiefer (hereinafter…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
In this issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act, the learned president of the common pleas directed a verdict for the plaintiff subject to the opinion of the court on the question of law arising upon the facts stated in his charge. On the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto, etc., the question of law reserved was considered and judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of plaintiff. The errors assigned are: Directing the verdict for plaintiff, and afterwards entering judgment thereon in his favor; in not directing a verdict for defendant, and in discharging the rule for…
2Cited by6 opinions
- In re East End Mantel & Tile Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1913
- In re FitzpatrickDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1923
- In re MinaDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
- Hauck v. FreyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1916
- Lindqvist v. DonovanDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.