Murphy v. Chase

103 Pa. 260, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 149
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 23, 1883·No. No. 93·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed

Pee Cueiam.

It must be conceded that the court erre.d in permitting the plea of abatement to be added during the trial of the cause. It was too late in time and defective in form. The plaintiff, however, was not injured thereby.

The general rule is that an officer of the law is presumed to have done his duty. So, when a public officer has done an act which should be preceded by certain preliminary steps, it will be presumed they were taken. All. these presumptions, however, must-be limited, to his acts as an officer. They do not apply to his precedent acts done as an agent. Hence in this case it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that notice of [263] the distress with the cause of such taking was given to the^tenant before the appraisement was made. Having wholly failed to prove this, the sale was invalid.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Murphy v. Chase, 103 Pa. 260, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 149 (Pa. 1883).

103 Pa. 260 (Murphy v. Chase) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bakove v. Reilly
21 Pa. D. & C. 389 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
Hemphill Co. v. Davis Knitting Co.
173 A. 704 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Mortgage B. & L. Ass'n v. Van Sciver
155 A. 920 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Sookiasian v. Swift Co. Inc.
100 Pa. Super. 69 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. James
14 Pa. D. & C. 98 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Walter v. Jenkins
10 Pa. D. & C. 186 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Snyder v. McGill
108 A. 410 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)
Manegold v. Quinn
45 Pa. Super. 482 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Ramsdell v. Seybert
27 Pa. Super. 133 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Snyder v. Boring
4 Pa. Super. 196 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Union Type Foundry v. Kittanning Ins.
20 A. 841 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)