Pownall v. Steele
| Decision Date | 01 June 1866 |
| Citation | 52 Pa. 446 |
| Parties | Pownall <I>versus</I> Steele. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
THIS was an action of replevin, by George Steele and Simeon B. Pownall against James Pownall and Simeon Pownall, commenced July 7th 1864. The plaintiffs declared for wheat in shock taken and "detained" by the defendants. Levi Pownall devised the land on which the wheat grew to his daughter Catharine for life. There was evidence that she leased it to George D. Steele for the year 1863; and there was also evidence that Steele had agreed with Simeon B. Pownall to farm the place with him to the shares. After the plaintiffs closed, the defendants asked the court to order a nonsuit, which was refused and an exception taken.
T. H. Reynolds and D. W. Patterson, for plaintiffs in error, cited Wilson v. Gray, 8 Watts 35; Morris on Repl. 218; Wilkinson on Repl. 85 (6 Law Lib.); Anderson v. Talcoth, 1 Gilm. 365; Edwards v. McCordy, 13 Ill. 496; Act of April 22d 1863, Pamph. L. 554.
G. M. Kline, O. J. Dickey and J. K. Alexander, for defendants in error, cited Bavington v. Pittsburgh Railroad, 10 Casey 358; Robinson v. English, Id. 324.
The opinion of the court was delivered, June 1st 1866, by AGNEW, J.
The court below was justified in submitting the evidence of the plaintiffs to the jury, and had it even been insufficient, no writ of error lies to the refusal to grant a nonsuit. If a nonsuit be entered by the court and is not taken off, the plaintiffs may have a writ of error to correct the error, if any.
No bill of exception was taken by the defendants to the admission of the declaration of Catharine Pownall as to her leasing to George Steele. The plaintiffs only excepted to so much as was excluded.
There is nothing in the charge of the court in conflict with the state of the pleadings, and no instruction was called for by the defendants. The court fairly submitted to the jury upon sufficient evidence to carry the case, the questions whether George Steele was in possession under a lease in his own right, and whether the crop was put in "on the shares," as it is termed by Simeon B. Pownall, for himself and Steele. The jury decided this in favour of the plaintiffs, and this was all that was in the case.
There was no exception to the admission of the replevin-bond, no instruction asked for, and nothing said by the judge in reference to it. None of the errors are sustained, and the
Judgment is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Franz
...--------- Notes: [*]Is the refusal to order a compulsory nonsuit assignable as error? See Bavington v. Railroad Co., 34 Pa. 358; Pownall v. Steele, 52 Pa. 446; U.S. Telegraph v. Wenger, 55 Pa. 262; Mobley v. Bruner, 59 Pa. 481; Lehman v. Kellerman, 65 Pa. 489; Ballentine v. White, 77 Pa. 20......
-
Woodward, Graybill & Co. v. Shumpp
...affirmed. --------- Notes: [*]Is the refusal to order a nonsuit assignable as error? See Bavington v. Railroad Co., 34 Pa. 358; Pownall v. Steele, 52 Pa. 446; U.S. Telegraph Co. Wenger, 55 Pa. 262; Mobley v. Bruner, 59 Pa. 481; Lehman v. Kellyman, 65 Pa. 489; Ballentine v. White, 77 Pa. 20;......
- Fellows v. Errington
-
Beard v. Reading City Passenger Railway Co.
...the nonsuit is assigned for error. It has been many times held that no writ of error lies to the refusal to grant a nonsuit: Pownall v. Steele, 52 Pa. 446; Mobley Bruner, 59 Pa. 481. The fourth assignment of error is, therefore, overruled. The sufficiency of the evidence to carry a verdict ......