Legal Opinion

Broom v. Fox

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 1800PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Replevin for 60 pieces of bandanoes. Defendant pleads property.

1Opinion of the Court

Pur cur.

Regularly, there can be no discontinuance without leave of the court, and this rule holds with peculiar force in replevins. 1 Leon. 105. There both the parties are actors, and yet the avowant cannot discontinue. 1 Stra. 112. When the goods are delivered to the plaintiff in replevin, the defendant has an evident interest in the suit, being entitled to a writ of retorno habendo, if the issue is found for him. When a claim of property is interposed by the defendant on the service of the process, the goods remain in his hands on his giving security, and the plaintiff proceeds for damages…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Easton v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
  2. Lacroix v. Macquart, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1836
  3. Pollock v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800
  4. D. S. & H. Craig, Inc. v. Young, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1934
  5. New York City v. Spannuth, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API