Elkins v. Griesemer
2 Pennyp. 52
Opinion
:
There can be no doubt that the defendant was an officer, “ acting in his office under the authority of the State,” within the provision of the Act of April 3d, 1779,1 Sm., 470, and the writ of replevin, therefore, issued in this case, was irregular, erroneous, and void: Pott v. Oldwine, 7 Watts, 173. The plaintiff cannot set up that the seizure was illegal. His proper remedy was an action of trespass: Stiles v. Griffith, 3 Yeates, 82.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Elkins v. Griesemer, 2 Pennyp. 52 (Pa. 1882).
2 Pennyp. 52 (Elkins v. Griesemer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kohonovich v. Freed
21 Pa. D. & C. 403 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
York v. Marshall
101 A. 820 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Cunningham v. Wilmerding Borough
38 Pa. Super. 20 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)