Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Hocker v. Stricker, under-sheriff, 1787 — 1 U.S. 225 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Hocker v. Stricker, under-sheriff
1 U.S. 2251 Dall. 225·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1787·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed 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
Hocker v. Stricker, under-sheriff.
Replevin.
In replevin, the sheriff ough t to allow the defendant a reasonable time to find security, before a removal of the goods; otherwise, it seems, he cannot justify under his writ.
[MAJORITY]
It was ruled, in this case, that before the goods are removed, the sheriff ought to allow a reasonable time, for the defendant in replevin to find security, on a claim of property ; which, in the practice of Pennsylvania, supplies the place of a writ de proprietate probanda: and Shippen, President, said, that if the jury were of opinion, that a reasonable time had been refused, the defendant, Strieker, could not, in an action of trespass, justify under the writ of replevin.
See Weaver v. Lawrence, ante, p. 156, and the notes to that ease.