Cox v. Hartranft
26 A. 304, 154 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 913
Opinion
The defendant was a surety on a replevin bond. The defence set up in his affidavit rested on matters that were controverted in the action of replevin and settled by the verdict in that case. The learned judge was right in holding that they could not be now retried, and that the affidavit was insufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cox v. Hartranft, 26 A. 304, 154 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 913 (Pa. 1893).
26 A. 304 (Cox v. Hartranft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth to Use v. Breckenridge (Et Al.)
33 A.2d 524 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Gifford Motor Car Co. v. Orr
4 Pa. D. & C. 555 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1923)