Automobile Securities Co. v. Swisshelm
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 82, April T., 1920, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1919, No. 884, quashing- writ of replevin in the case of Automobile Securities Company v. John A. Swiss-helm. Buie to show cause why a writ of replevin should not - be quashed. Before Carpenter, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute the rule. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 82, April T., 1920, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1919, No. 884, quashing- writ of replevin in the case of Automobile Securities Company v. John A. Swiss-helm. Buie to show cause why a writ of replevin should not - be quashed. Before Carpenter, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court made absolute the rule. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court. The provisions of the act requiring an affidavit of the value are directory and not mandatory: Hill v. Mervine (No. 2), 13 District Beports 582; Endlich…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
This is an appeal from an order quashing a writ of replevin. Plaintiffs affidavit filed under section 8 of the Beplevin Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 88 (amended by section 2 of the Act of March 19,1903, P. L. 39), was held insufficient because (1) it was not made by an officer of the corporation, and (2) it did not contain statements of fact showing the authority of the'agent who made it. For that conclusion the court relied on decisions defining what a sufficient affidavit of defense made for a corporation by an agent must contain. We perceive no controlling analogy…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Watterson v. FuellhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Guinn v. VitteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916