Currier v. Bilger
| Decision Date | 02 May 1892 |
| Docket Number | 50 |
| Citation | 149 Pa. 109,24 A. 168 |
| Parties | Currier v. Bilger, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 18, 1892
Appeal, No. 50, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, Jacob Bilger from judgment of C.P. Clearfield Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 220 on verdict for plaintiff, J. Currier.
Appeal from justice in trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's horse as the result of being gored by defendant's bull.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The case was tried before KREBS, P.J. The verdict was for the plaintiff for $160.
Error assigned was, among others, the refusal of defendant's second point, given in the opinion, quoting it.
Judgment reversed.
John H. Orvis, George M. Bilger and J. Frank Snyder with him, for appellant.
A. L. Cole, of Cole & McQuown, for appellee.
Before PAXSON, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, MITCHELL and HEYDRICK, JJ.
We are of opinion that the defendant's 2d point should have been affirmed. The point was as follows: "If the jury believe that the plaintiff, on June 27, 1890, agreed to take from the defendant $15.00 in full satisfaction of the damages caused by goring of plaintiff's horse by defendant's bull, and the defendant then and there paid the amount agreed upon, the subsequent death of the horse would not enable the plaintiff to maintain an action for the same injury, the damage for which had been settled."
In order to understand this point, it is necessary to state that the plaintiff's horse had been gored by defendant's bull. Shortly thereafter a settlement took place between the parties, as will appear by the following receipt:
A week after the settlement the plaintiff's horse died, as is supposed, from the effect of the injury. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff brought this suit to recover the value of the horse, before a justice of the peace, and obtained a judgment for $160, from which judgment the defendant appealed to the court of common pleas. On the trial in the court below the defendant set up this receipt as a bar to the action, and the 2d point referred to, prayed for an instruction to that effect. The point was refused and a bill sealed.
While it is settled law that a contract made under a mistake, or in ignorance of material facts, may be relieved against in equity, we have no such question here. There was no mutual mistake of the parties as to any material fact....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albright v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company
...it is conclusive as to the cause of action asserted therein: Baumgartner v. Whinney, 156 Pa.Super. 167, 39 A.2d 738 1944; Currier v. Bilger, 149 Pa. 109, 24 A. 168 1892; Berg v. Cypher, 291 Pa. 276, 139 A. 844 1927; Sale v. Ambler, 335 Pa. 165, 6 A.2d 519 * * * * * * The final determination......
-
Kemp v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co.
... ... Ry. v. Swank, 105 Pa. 555; Logan v ... Caffrey, 30 Pa. 196; Hoffeditz v. Ry., 129 Pa ... 264; Updegrove v. R.R., 132 Pa. 540; Currier v ... Bilger, 1 Adv. R. 664 [149 Pa. 109] ... The ... covenants in an agreement for the sale of land are not merged ... in or ... ...
-
McIsaac v. McMurray
...to the severity or a Known injury, as distinguished from ignorance of the existence of a distinct and independent injury. Currier v. Bilger, 149 Pa. 109, 24 Atl. 168; Seeley v. Company, 179 Pa. St. 334, 36 Atl. 229; Chicago, etc., Ey. v. Wilcox, 116 Fed. 913, 54 C. C. A. It is probably true......
-
Sustrik v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
...is conclusive as to the cause of action asserted therein: Baumgartner v. Whinney, 156 Pa.Super. 167, 39 A.2d 738 (1944); Currier v. Bilger, 149 Pa. 109, 24 A. 168 (1892); Berg v. Cypher, 291 Pa. 276, 139 A. 844 (1927); Sale v. Ambler, 335 Pa. 165, 6 A.2d 519 As to the coal for which recover......