Adams v. La Comb
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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, (c)
See Gracevel v. Shiy, 12 S. & R. 217; Hobbs v. Geiss, 13 Id. 417; Waters v. McClellan, 4 Dall. 208 .
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“Unless the debtor affirmatively secures a hardship determination, 2 the discharge order will not include a student loan debt.”)
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.