Property · MBE-tested
Adams v. La Comb
1 U.S. 4401 Dall. 440·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1789·PA
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Adams v. La Comb.
Distress.
The goods of a stranger can be distrained for rent, only while on the premises.
Replevin. The material question, on the trial of this cause, was, whether the goods of a stranger, being removed from the premises, 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 Sm. L. 370.)
Scott v. McEwen, 2 Phila. 176; Sleeper v. Parrish, 7 Id. 247.
[MAJORITY — Shippen, President,]
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 premises,
See Gracevel v. Shiy, 12 S. & R. 217; Hobbs v. Geiss, 13 Id. 417; Waters v. McClellan, 4 Dall. 208.