Adams v. La Comb
1 U.S. 440 | Pa. | 1789
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.
