Gloss v. Black
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 122. Trespass vi et armis, de bonis asportatis, by Jacob Black, against Philip Gloss, Joseph Hoofnagle, John H. Walker and John Young.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 122. Trespass vi et armis, de bonis asportatis, by Jacob Black, against Philip Gloss, Joseph Hoofnagle, John H. Walker and John Young. The facts were these: On the 10th of May 1877, R. J. Dahle obtained a judgment, before Justice Adam Black, against R. M. Shaw, and soon after issued an execution to John Young, a constable, who, by virtue thereof, regularly levied upon and sold, as the property of Shaw, certain rig timbers, about thirty-two pieces, to Philip Gloss, for $40. Gloss immediately gave the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
To maintain this action it is absolutely necessary that the plaintiff, at the time of the trespass, had the actual possession or the right of taking it. Where goods of a stranger to an execution, are seized and held under it, they are in the custody of the law, and while so held the owner cannot take possession, nor maintain replevin. The law does not attribute constructive possession to the owner of property which it has in its own control by means of an officer. A mere purchaser at a sale by the officer, who receives from him immediate possession, is not responsible in trespass. His *422purchase…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hammon v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hoxsie v. NodineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
- C. I. T. Corp. v. ShakespeareSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928