Legal Opinion

Hardesty v. Pyle

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 21, 1883Published

Sur motion on the part of the defendant for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtAcheson, J.

1. We cannot give our assent to the proposition that the-rolling stock in question was bound by the first mortgage of the first corporation. That company never owned any rolling stock, and none passed to the purchaser of the railroad at the sale under the company’s second mortgage. The locomotive and cars were acquired after that sale, and after the incorporation of the second company. Moreover, the jury have found that they were not the property of the second company, but were purchased and owned by Coffroth, Uhl & Banner, and that their title became vested in the plaintiff before the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fosdick v. SchallSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. United States v. New Orleans RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  3. Gable v. HainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830

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

Powered by the Exa API