Widdall v. Garsed

Citations

• 125 Pa. 358
• 17 A. 418
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 725

Syllabus

<p>1. On a sheriff’s interpleader to determine the ownership of personal property levied upon in a mill, it is not error to refuse to charge that the verdict should be for the defendant, if the jury find that when an alleged transfer of the business took place from the defendant in the execution to the claimant, there was no change of possession, but the defendant in the execution remained in possession and conducted the business as before.</p> <p>‘2. The familiar rule that an assignment, to be good against the creditors of the assignor must be accompanied by a delivery of possession, refers To visible, tangible property; moreover, the title of the claimant in a sheriff’s interpleader cannot be defeated by the mere declarations of his assignor.</p>