Krepps v. Miller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Krepps v. Miller

34 A. 51, 172 Pa. 393, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 788

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 6, 1896

DocketAppeal, No. 62

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A. 51 (Krepps v. Miller) 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

Krepps v. Miller, 34 A. 51, 172 Pa. 393, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 788 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This feigned issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act was submitted to the jury, on the testimony properly before them, with instructions quite as favorable to the plaintiff as he could reasonably ask.

The main question was whether there was such a deliver of the property in controversy, pursuant to the alleged sale by Mrs. Daugherty to the plaintiff, as would be good against the defendant. The testimony, as to the bona fides of the alleged delivery and change of possession, was so meager and unsatisfactory as to make the question of its submission a close one, but the learned trial judge, giving the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt as to its sufficiency, submitted it fairly to the jury, and they found in favor of the defendant. There was no question as to the admission or rejection of testimony. Nor do we think there is any question involved in either of the assignments of error that requires discussion. Neither of them is sustained.'

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This feigned issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act was submitted to the jury, on the testimony properly before them, with instructions quite as favorable to the plaintiff as he could reasonably ask.

The main question was whether there was such a deliver of the property in controversy, pursuant to the alleged sale by Mrs. Daugherty to the plaintiff, as would be good against the defendant. The testimony, as to the bona fides of the alleged delivery and change of possession, was so meager and unsatisfactory as to make the question of its submission a close one, but the learned trial judge, giving the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt as to its sufficiency, submitted it fairly to the jury, and they found in favor of the defendant. There was no question as to the admission or rejection of testimony. Nor do we think there is any question involved in either of the assignments of error that requires discussion. Neither of them is sustained.'

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A. 51, 172 Pa. 393, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krepps-v-miller-pa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack