Cox v. Hartranft
26 A. 304, 154 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 913
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 10, 1893
DocketAppeal, No. 159
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 26 A. 304 (Cox v. Hartranft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Cox v. Hartranft, 26 A. 304, 154 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 913 (Pa. 1893).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
26 A. 304, 154 Pa. 457, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-hartranft-pa-1893.