Gross & P. Manuf'g Co. v. Gerhard

11 F. Cas. 77, 8 Reporter, 136, 25 Int. Rev. Rec. 280, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 1975
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided March 22, 1879·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

While it is true that the party who is actually the defendant may, under the rule of court, require security for costs, although nominally he is plaintiff, the facts here disclosed by the affidavit show a case in which the burden of proof is upon the claimant to satisfy the jury that he obtained the goods bona fide, and paid full value for them. He is the actual as well as the nominal plaintiff. Rule discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gross & P. Manuf'g Co. v. Gerhard, 11 F. Cas. 77, 8 Reporter, 136, 25 Int. Rev. Rec. 280, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 1975 (circtedpa 1879).

11 F. Cas. 77 (Gross & P. Manuf'g Co. v. Gerhard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boston & Colorado Smelting Co. v. Smith
13 R.I. 27 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1880)