Adams v. La Comb

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Adams v. La Comb

1 U.S. 440

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 15, 1789·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Shippen, President,

in the charge to the jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods, after their removal, was confined to the goods of the lessee, from whom the rent was really due ; and that the goods of a stranger could only be distrained, while they were on the premises,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shippen, President,

in the charge to the jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods, after their removal, was confined to the goods of the lessee, from whom the rent was really due ; and that the goods of a stranger could only be distrained, while they were on the premises,

Adams v. La Comb, 1 U.S. 440 (1789).

Pincite

1 U.S. 440 (Adams v. La Comb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related