Galbraith v. Bridges & Williams
This text of 32 A. 20 (Galbraith v. Bridges & Williams) 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.
Opinion
This is an issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act. Certain goods were seized by the sheriff aS the property of John Galbraith. His son William Galbraith claims to own them, and-a question is thus raised between the defendants, who are the execution creditors of John, and William the claimant, as to the ownership of the property seized. There is no reason suggested why this question should not be settled in accordance with the actual fact. If the lessor was proceeding upon his lease, against the man who signed it as lessee, the questions raised by the appellant would require consideration; but the lease establishes no relation between the parties to this issue. It is admissible as evidence bearing upon the question of ownership, but it is not conclusive; and there is no fact appearing that could, by way of estoppel or otherwise, prevent the claimant from showing that the lease was in fact taken for him, and that the farm had been cultivated and the crops raised by him.
The assignments of error are not sustained and the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
32 A. 20, 168 Pa. 325, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galbraith-v-bridges-williams-pa-1895.