ADAMS v. LA COMB, 1 U.S. 440 (1789)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
ADAMS v. LA COMB, 1 U.S. 440 (1789)1 U.S. 440 (Dall.)
Adams
v.
La Comb
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
June Term, 1789
REPLEVIN. The material question, on the trial of this cause, was, Whether the goods of a stranger, being removed from the premisses before a distress, could be pursued and seized, within the thirty days, which the Act of Assembly allows for pursuing and seizing the goods of the Tenant? See 1 State Laws, 433, &c.
Shippen, President
In the charge to the Jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of
the Court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods after their
removal, was confined to the goods of the Lessee, from whom the
rent was really due; and that the goods of a stranger could only be
distrained while they were on the premisses.
Opinions
v.
La Comb Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1789 REPLEVIN. The material question, on the trial of this cause, was, Whether the goods of a stranger, being removed from the premisses before a distress, could be pursued and seized, within the thirty days, which the Act of Assembly allows for pursuing and seizing the goods of the Tenant? See 1 State Laws, 433, &c. Shippen, President In the charge to the Jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the Court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods after their removal, was confined to the goods of the Lessee, from whom the rent was really due; and that the goods of a stranger could only be distrained while they were on the premisses.
U.S. Supreme Court
ADAMS v. LA COMB, 1 U.S. 440 (1789) 1 U.S. 440 (Dall.) Adamsv.
La Comb Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1789 REPLEVIN. The material question, on the trial of this cause, was, Whether the goods of a stranger, being removed from the premisses before a distress, could be pursued and seized, within the thirty days, which the Act of Assembly allows for pursuing and seizing the goods of the Tenant? See 1 State Laws, 433, &c. Shippen, President In the charge to the Jury, delivered it as the clear opinion of the Court, that the right of pursuing and seizing goods after their removal, was confined to the goods of the Lessee, from whom the rent was really due; and that the goods of a stranger could only be distrained while they were on the premisses.
Search This Case
