Elkins v. Griesemer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Elkins v. Griesemer

2 Pennyp. 52

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1882

DocketNo. 12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 Pennyp. 52 (Elkins v. Griesemer) 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

Elkins v. Griesemer, 2 Pennyp. 52 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam

:

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

— Per Curiam

:

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pennyp. 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elkins-v-griesemer-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack