Shebel & Hill v. Bryden
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of July Term 1886, No. 84. This was an issue framed by the court wherein Andrew Bryden was the plaintiff, and Shebel & Hill were the defendants, to determine to which one belonged the sum of $10,669. This fund was produced in the following manner : On March 1st, 1880, the Pittston Knitting Company Limited, mortgaged their land, buildings and machinery to Andrew Bryden, trustee, for $12,000, to secure -bonds of the same…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of July Term 1886, No. 84. This was an issue framed by the court wherein Andrew Bryden was the plaintiff, and Shebel & Hill were the defendants, to determine to which one belonged the sum of $10,669. This fund was produced in the following manner : On March 1st, 1880, the Pittston Knitting Company Limited, mortgaged their land, buildings and machinery to Andrew Bryden, trustee, for $12,000, to secure -bonds of the same amount issued to various parties. On November 30th, 1882, the mortgaged premises were partially destroyed by fire, the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sterrett
delivered the opinion of the co.urt,
The controlling question of fact, properly submitted to the jury and by them found in favor of the plaintiff in the issue, was whether the assignment to him of the insurance policies was duly executed and delivered before the attachment execution of defendants below was issued. This finding of the jury is conclusive of thé case, unless the learned judge erred in the admission or rejection of testimony, or in his instructions to the jury.
There was no error in charging as complained of in the first and second specifications, nor in refusing to affirm…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Farabee v. McKerrihanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Prouty v. MarshallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Appeal of ShebleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Sutherland v. PurdyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916