Brown v. Lynn
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Citation | 31 Pa. 510 |
| Parties | Brown versus Lynn. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
R. Woods & J. T. Cochran, for the plaintiff in error.
Penney & Sterrett, for the defendant in error.
The offer of the evidence, contained in the bill of exceptions of the plaintiff in error, was properly rejected. And not only for the reason assigned by the court, but because it was not relevant. One trespass, even if it amounted to this, would not justify another; and the testimony, if it had been admitted, could have had no operation, unless this rule were reversed. Indeed, the reasoning for the position contended for, necessarily maintained the principle that, the defendant, on account of the alleged trespass of the plaintiff in fastening his boat to a rock at his landing, might have cast it adrift or otherwise destroyed it without liability. A doctrine that no law will justify. The offered testimony did not touch the point of insufficient fastening, and for all these reasons was inadmissible.
We overrule the exceptions to the charge of the court in answer to the defendant's points, upon the views of the learned judge on the law of the case, so accurately laid down to the jury in his charge, in which they are fully answered.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papich v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...McLaughlin, 47 Ill. 265. And the rule applies to infant trespassers. See Railroad v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375, 84 Am. Dec. 457;Brown v. Lynn, 31 Pa. 510, 72 Am. Dec. 768;Reeves v. Railroad, 30 Pa. 454, 72 Am. Dec. 713. It will not create liability that the standing cars were approached by a trai......
-
Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co.
... ... negligence." ( Farrell v. Waterbury, 60 Conn ... 239, 21 A. 675, 22 A. 544; Diamond v. North. P. Ry., ... 6 Mont. 580, 13 P. 367, 371; Brown v. Lynn, 31 Pa ... 510, 72 Am. Dec. 768; Young v. Citizens' St. R ... Co., 148 Ind. 54, 44 N.E. 927, 47 N.E. 142; ... Citizens' R. Co. v ... ...
-
Papich v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
...Co. v. McLaughlin, 47 Ill. 265. And the rule applies to infant trespassers. See Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375; Brown v. Lynn, 31 Pa. 510, 7 Casey 510; v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 30 Pa. 454, 6 Casey 454. It will not create liability that the standing cars were approached ......
-
Behling v. Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines
... ... burning of the Butler well than plaintiff was to foresee it ... and to take precautionary measures against it: Brown v ... Lynn, 31 Pa. 510; Reeves v. R.R., 30 Pa. 454 ... Where ... no contractual relation exists, negligence must be proved ... ...