Berger & Wirth v. H. W. Juergen & Co.
Berger & Wirth v. H. W. Juergen & Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
It was held that an award or refusal of an issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act of 1848 was not a matter of right but of sound discretion under all the circumstances of the case: Bain v. Funk, 61 Pa. 185; Zacharias v. Totten, 90 Pa. 286; White v. Rech, 171 Pa. 82. Whether or not the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 95, has changed the law in this regard and gives the claimant a right of appeal-(using that term in its strict sense) from the refusal of an issue is a question left open for future consideration. It is not necessary to express a decided opinion upon it in the present ease; for it is clear that the legislature did not intend to take away the discretionary power of the court to inquire into the claimant’s title and to refuse the issue where none is required under the circumstances of the case. This case furnishes a fair illustration of the consequences that might ensue if it were to be held that a claimant is entitled to an issue as a matter of right, without regard to the circumstances of the case disclosed on the hearing of the application. On the return of the rule to show cause he filed an answer in which he set forth that “ the goods appearing in the schedule hereto annexed are his under bill of sale, and this, affiant can verify on the trial of said case.” When the bill of sale was delivered, whether before or after the issuing of the execution, and whether, possession was ever given, are material facts upon which the affidavit is silent. Therefore it cannot be said that the claimant clearly averred a good prima facie title as against the execution creditor, and in the absence of such averment
Finding no error in the record the order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Berger & Wirth v. H. W. Juergen & Co. Appeal of James W. Tygard
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Sheriff's interpleader — Refusal of issue — Right of Appeal — Act of 1897. The Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 95, does not take away the discretionary power of the court to inquire into a claimant’s right in a sheriffs inter-pleader proceedings, and to refuse the issue when such course is required under the circumstances of any given ease. A claimant does not disclose a good prima facie title when, relying upon an alleged bill of sale, on return of a rule to showcause, his affidavit fails to aver when the bill of sale was delivered, whether before or after the issuing of the execution, and whether possession was ever given ; under such circumstances it certainly is not error, much less an abuse of discretion, on the part of the court to refuse to tie up an execution and put the parties to the expense of a jury trial. Whether the act of May 26, 1897, has changed the law so as to give a right of appeal, from an award or refusal of an issue under the sheriff’s interpleader act as a matter of right, in the strict sense of the term, appeal, not decided.