Davis v. Thompson
14 A. 169, 10 Sadler 563, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 986
Opinion
There is nothing at all in this case which requires consideration. That the action of trover does not lie for the recovery of [566] a debt, or for damages arising from the breach of a contract, is a proposition too plain for discussion.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Davis v. Thompson, 14 A. 169, 10 Sadler 563, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 986 (Pa. 1888).
14 A. 169 (Davis v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pearl Assurance Co. v. National Insurance Agency, Inc.
28 A.2d 334 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Sterrett v. Royal Indemnity Co.
26 Pa. D. & C. 254 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
Cherry Ex Rel. Cherkasky v. Paller
91 Pa. Super. 417 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Hartford v. Smith
199 F. 763 (Third Circuit, 1912)
Sutterly v. Fleshman
41 Pa. Super. 131 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
V. P. Randolph & Co. v. Walker
59 S.E. 856 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
Succession of Marchand
2 Teiss. 261 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1905)
Alfred Shrimpton & Sons v. Culver
67 N.W. 907 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Harang v. Blanc
34 La. 632 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1882)