Laverty v. Vanarsdale
| Decision Date | 07 July 1870 |
| Citation | 65 Pa. 507 |
| Parties | Laverty <I>versus</I> Vanarsdale <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county: No. 63, of May Term 1870.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. Hays, W. M. Penrose and L. Todd, for plaintiff in error. —An action on the case in the nature of a conspiracy will lie against one, or if brought against many all may be acquitted but one: Fitz. Nat. Brev. 114 D. 116 A. K.; Skinner v. Gunton, 1 Saund. Rep. by Williams 228 c., n. 4, p. 230; Savill v. Roberts, 1 Ld. Raym. 378; Muriel v. Tracy, 6 Mod. 169; Pollard v. Evans, 2 Show. 50; Jones v. Baker, 7 Cowen 445; Eason v. Westbrook & Garland, 2 Taylor (N. C.) 267; Burton v. Fulton, 13 Wright 151; Haldeman v. Martin, 10 Barr 369; Hood v. Palm, 8 Id. 237. The examination of plaintiff as to the abuse was purely collateral, his answer is conclusive: 1 Starkie on Ev. 337, 338, 200, 201, and notes; Griffith v. Eshelman, 4 Watts 51; Smith v. Dreer, 3 Whart. 154; 1 Stark. 241, n.
H. Newsham, S. Hepburn, Jr., W. H. Miller and S. Hepburn, for defendants in error.
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 7th 1870, by READ, J.
This is an action upon the case, in the nature of a conspiracy against the defendants, for falsely and maliciously combining and conspiring to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining employment as a school teacher, and by reason of which combination and conspiracy he was deprived of employment as a school teacher, and prevented from earning support for himself and family as such. The damage sustained by the plaintiff is the ground of the action, not the conspiracy. "Where the action is brought against two or more, as concerned in the wrong done, it is necessary, in order to recover against all of them, to prove a combination or joint act of all. For this purpose it may be important to establish the allegation of a conspiracy. But if it turn out on the trial that only one was concerned, the plaintiff may still recover, the same as if such one had been sued alone. The conspiracy or combination is nothing, so far as sustaining the action goes, the foundation of it being the actual damage done to the party:" Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 Hill 104; Jones v. Baker, 7 Cowen 445; Parker v. Huntington, 2 Gray 124.
The court was therefore clearly in error in saying there could be no recovery against one only.
There was also error in the admission of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin Music Co. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
...a finding of conspiracy but did support a finding that one defendant was culpable on the underlying substantive tort. Laverty v. Vanarsdale, 65 Pa. 507 (1870); Collins v. Cronin, 117 Pa. 35, 11 A. 869 (1887); Rundell v. Kalbfus, 125 Pa. 123, 17 A. 238 (1889); Fillman v. Ryon, 168 Pa. 484, 3......
-
Bond v. Williams
...defendants or none. Aronsen v. Ricker, 185 Mo.App. 528, 533; Rice v. McAdams, 62 S.E. 774; Hoblichtel v. Yawbert, 39 Mo. 877; Laverty v. Vanarzdale, 65 Pa. 507; Hines Whitehead, 99 N.W. 1064; Shafer v. Ostman, 148 Mo.App. 648. (2) The question of whether or not plaintiff had sustained any a......
-
Root v. Rose
...Delz v. Winfre, 80 Tex. 400, 26 Am. St. Rep. 755; Robertsou v. Parks, 24 At. Rep. 411; Kimball v. Harman, 6 Am. Rep. 340; Laverty v. Vanarsdale, 65 Pa. 507; Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 Hill 104; Cooley on 125; City v. Simmons, 23 N.E. 211; Race v. Coolidge, 121 Mass. 393; Van Horn v. Van Horn, ......
-
Robinson v. Van Hooser
...upon the case in the nature of a conspiracy against defendants for combining to injure plaintiff in his person and property (Laverty v. Vanarsdale, 65 Pa. 507, 509) or action of tort for a conspiracy so to injure him in person and property (Emmons v. Alvord, 177 Mass. 466, 468, 59 N.E. 126)......