Legal Opinion

Gensbigler v. Shawley

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1948No. Appeal, 107PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Ross, J.,

This is an action of replevin for certain mining equipment. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and after the defendants’ motions for new trial and judgment n. o. v. were refused, they took this appeal only from the refusal of the court below to enter judgment n. o. v.

In a replevin action the sole issue is one of title and right to possession (Royal Batting and Felting Co. v. Klein, Admrx., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 622, 27 A. 2d 539; Koehring v. Ventresca, 334 Pa. 566, 6 A. 2d 297) and all matters foreign thereto must be excluded from consideration and are not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Leitch v. Sanford Motor Truck Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Blossom Products Corp. v. National Underwear Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. McKee, Tr. v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Koehring Company v. VentrescaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Royal Batting & Felting Co. v. KleinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. CaiazzoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Fenton v. BalickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Brandywine Lanes, Inc. v. Pittsburgh National BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Equico Lessors, Inc. v. EwingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Bower, M. v. Bower, P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API