Frantz v. Lenhart
| Decision Date | 22 November 1867 |
| Citation | 56 Pa. 365 |
| Parties | Frantz <I>et al. versus</I> Lenhart. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, STRONG, READ and AGNEW, JJ. WOODWARD, C. J., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county: No. 26, to October and November Term 1867 G. W. K. Minor, for plaintiffs in error, cited 2 Hilliard on Torts 310, 311, 315; Bard v. Yohn, 2 Casey 482; Guille v. Swan, 19 Johns. 382; Judgson v. Cook, 11 Barb. 642; Brook v. Ashbaun, 9 Geo. 302; Smithwick v. Ward, 7 Jones' L. R. N. C. 64; Reeves v. Del. L. & W. Railroad, 6 Casey 460.
A. Howell and D. Kaine, for defendant in error, cited 2 Hilliard on Torts 309-311, 314; Bard v. Yohn, 2 Casey 482; Ream v. Harnish, 9 Wright 378; Dennis v. Alexander, 3 Barr 51; Hamett v. Dundass, 4 Id. 181; Nagle v. Mullison, 10 Casey 53, 54; Porter v. Seiler, 11 Harris, 428; Reeves v. Del. L. & W. Railroad, 6 Casey 460; Gaskell v. Morris, 7 W. & S. 40.
The opinion of the court was delivered, November 22d 1867, by THOMPSON, J.
Several defendants being sued or joined in an action for trespass and assault and battery upon the plaintiff, the judge charged that any of them might be held liable, although they did not put a finger on the plaintiff, provided they aided encouraged or abetted the act. "Nor is it required," said he, "in order to make themselves principals, that the persons actually engaged in committing the injury should know that other persons were consenting or aiding and encouraging the act." For so charging the defendants below except, and it forms the 1st assignment of error.
It is difficult to comprehend how this should be considered an error in law. If men present at a quarrel, encourage a battery, by doing so they assume upon themselves the consequences of the acts done to the full extent, as much so as the party who does the beating. Often they are more culpable. It is not necessary that the encouragement should consist of appeals to the ruffian engaged in committing the battery, or that he should know what they are so doing. It is enough if they encourage and sanction what is being done, and manifest this by demonstrations, of resistance to any who might desire to interfere to prevent it; or by words, gestures or acts, indicating an approval of what is going on. It is contrary to law — contrary to duty — and the law will not weigh very nicely the acts of particular individuals, to ascertain whether what was said or done by them has enhanced the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giannone v. Ayne Institute
...a dusty decision of the state Supreme Court. See Keich v. Frost, 63 Pa. D. & C.2d 499, 501 (C.C.P. Dauphin Cty.1973) (quoting Frantz v. Lenhart, 56 Pa. 365 (1867)). Moreover, the Court of Common Pleas relied only on the portion of the Supreme Court's opinion that quoted a trial judge's jury......
-
Minnich v. Lancaster & Lititz Electric Ry. Co.
...by plaintiff, caused by the building of the railway. The rule which controls in such cases has been laid down by this court: Frantz v. Lenhart, 56 Pa. 365; Pittsburg, Pass. Ry. Co. v. Donahue, 70 Pa. 119; Whitney v. Backus, 149 Pa. 29; Fisher v. Monongahela Connecting Ry. Co., 131 Pa. 292; ......
-
McCloskey v. Powell
... ... recognized in our cases: McMurtrie v. Stewart, 21 ... Pa. 322; Welsh v. Cooper, supra; Frantz v. Lenhart, ... 56 Pa. 365; Deal v. Bogue, 20 Pa. 228 ... [123 ... Pa. 75] There is no hardship involved in the application of ... ...
-
Williams v. F. & W. Grand Five, Ten & Twenty-Five Cent Stores, Inc.
...Brennan v. Merchant & Co., 205 Pa. 258. Michael J. Geraghty, for appellee, cited: Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Lyon, 123 Pa. 140; Frantz v. Lenhart, 56 Pa. 365. MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART and SCHAFFER, JJ. OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER: Elizabeth Williams visited defend......