Skip to main content

Lynn v. Lynn

Citations

  • 256 Pa. 563
  • 100 A. 975
  • 1917 Pa. LEXIS 659

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Orders—Interlocutory and final orders — Rule to impound, replevied goods.</p> <p>1. An order of the Common Pleas Court discharging a rule to show cause why goods replevied should not be impounded is final as to the custody of the goods, and the Supreme Court will take jurisdiction of an appeal from such an order.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Replevin—Act of April H, 1905, P. L. 16S— Construction — Impounding replevied goods.</p> <p>2. The Act of April 14, 1905, P. L. 163, providing that upon the filing of an affidavit by the plaintiff to the effect that by reason of the nature of property replevied the pecuniary value thereof will not compensate him for the loss thereof, the court shall order the property to be impounded, is remedial; the word “shall” is imperative and is to be regarded as peremptory, and where such affidavit is filed and the other requirements of the act are complied with the court should as a matter of course make an order to impound the goods. In such case it is for the plaintiff, and not for the court, to say whether by reason of the nature of the property or of any special circumstances, connected with plaintiff’s ownership thereof the actual pecuniary value of such property will not compensate him for the loss thereof.</p> <p>3. Where in an action of replevin the plaintiff filed a petition in which he averred in effect that the greater part of the chattels replevied were antique, and were purchased by petitioner at public sale of the effects of old families, and prayed that the goods might be impounded under the Act of April 14, 1905, P. L. 163, and the answer admitted most of the averments of the petition, but claimed ownership of the goods and denied that any of the articles covered by the writ were heirlooms or family pieces of the plaintiff’s family, the court erred in discharging a rule to show cause why the goods should not be impounded and on appeal the order was reversed.</p>

Judges: Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.