Heitzman v. Divil
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Union. July 26. The action in the court below was trover and conversion, brought by Henry Heitzman against Bastían Divi'I, William Speese, and John Speese, to recover damages for taking away and converting to their own use a stack of grain. Both parties admitted that Bastían Divil was the original owner of the stack of grain.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Union. July 26. The action in the court below was trover and conversion, brought by Henry Heitzman against Bastían Divi'I, William Speese, and John Speese, to recover damages for taking away and converting to their own use a stack of grain. Both parties admitted that Bastían Divil was the original owner of the stack of grain. It seemed 'that he was a tenant of Daniel Rangier, and on his land raised the grain; he became indebted to Rangier to a considerable amount; Rangier sued him, but before he could get judgment, Bastían Divil and his brother John went to a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of this court was delivered by
Burnside, J.
The evidence shows that Bastían Divil voluntarily confessed a judgment to his brother, John Divil, with the object of postponing Rangier, his landlord.
On this judgment an execution issued, and the grain in question was sold to John, who left it with Bastían, and gave notice in the public papers that he had loaned it to Bastían during his pleasure, of which the public were to take notice. If this had been a fair and bond fide sale, according to the principles settled in Myers v. Harvey, 2 Pa. R. 478, the title to the property would have…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bennett v. Lockwood & CarterNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Goodman v. LoseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fitzwater v. FassettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901