Welsh v. Warrington

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Welsh v. Warrington

28 Pa. Super. 229, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 171

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 13, 1905

DocketAppeal, No. 194

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Pa. Super. 229 (Welsh v. Warrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welsh v. Warrington, 28 Pa. Super. 229, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 171 (Pa. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

In Snyder, v. Boring, 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 196, President Judge Rice brings together a number of authorities which establish conclusively the necessity for. a strict observance of the statutory directions to be followed by a landlord when asserting his right to sell goods distrained for rent.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to the value of the goods being uncontradicted, it was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the court below did not commit an error in submitting that question for the consideration of the jury (Blair v. Boring, 200 Pa. 27; Seidel v. Sperry, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 649), yet there was a radical controversy as to the knowledge of the landlord in regard to the conditions under which the articles were on the leased premises, and as to the date when notice and demand were made for the return of the property by Brown to Welsh. The constable who executed the landlord’s warrant testified, “ that after the expiration of five days I posted the bills and sold them out, having appraised the goods,” but the description and identity of the property are so confusing and uncertain that the case should have been submitted to a jury under proper instructions rather than to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

In Snyder, v. Boring, 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 196, President Judge Rice brings together a number of authorities which establish conclusively the necessity for. a strict observance of the statutory directions to be followed by a landlord when asserting his right to sell goods distrained for rent.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to the value of the goods being uncontradicted, it was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the court below did not commit an error in submitting that question for the consideration of the jury (Blair v. Boring, 200 Pa. 27; Seidel v. Sperry, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 649), yet there was a radical controversy as to the knowledge of the landlord in regard to the conditions under which the articles were on the leased premises, and as to the date when notice and demand were made for the return of the property by Brown to Welsh. The constable who executed the landlord’s warrant testified, “ that after the expiration of five days I posted the bills and sold them out, having appraised the goods,” but the description and identity of the property are so confusing and uncertain that the case should have been submitted to a jury under proper instructions rather than to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Pa. Super. 229, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welsh-v-warrington-pasuperct-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack