The application for writ of error, after the address, is as follows: “Plaintiff in error sued in the District Court for the value of certain goods converted by appellant (Fields), of the value of $1293 with legal interest. “Defendant in error pleaded among other things that plaintiff in error had bought the goods at sheriff’s sale for $725 and, if entitled to recover, he could only recover the price paid at sheriff’s sale with interest.” “There was a verdict and judgment for…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1896-01-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1982
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
We are clearly of the opinion that the application for the writ of error in this case should be refused. But since the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals overrules not only a former decision of this court, but also the ruling of another court of civil appeals, we deem it proper for the future guidance of the profession to express our concurrence in their opinion. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals, and the conflict alone gives us jurisdiction of the application.
¶2
The opinion of the court of Civil Appeals ably reviews the authorities upon the question presented, and is, as we think, unanswerable. We have made a careful and possibly an exhaustive research and have found no case, save those in our own courts, in which a contrary doctrine is announced. To those cited in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in support of their ruling may be added the following recent cases: Kline v. McCandless, 139 Pa. St., 223; Fields v. Williams, 8 So. Rep. (Ala.), 808.
¶3
The application for the writ of error is refused.
