Sheldrake v. Rumpf

• Decision Date: 13 December 1917
• Docket Number: 153-1917,152-1917,154-1917
• Citation: 68 Pa.Super. 546
• Parties: Sheldrake, Appellant, v. Rumpf. Holt, Appellant, v. Rumpf. Hahn, Appellant, v. Rumpf
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

68 Pa.Super. 546

Sheldrake, Appellant, v. Rumpf.

Holt, Appellant, v. Rumpf.

Hahn, Appellant, v. Rumpf

Nos. 152-1917, 153-1917, 154-1917

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 13, 1917

Argued October 10, 1917

Appeals by plaintiffs, from order of Municipal Court Philadelphia Co.-1916, Nos. 491, 492, 493, refusing to take off nonsuit in cases of George B. Sheldrake, Jr., v. Gustav Rumpf, Charles Holt v. Gustav Rumpf and Virginia Hahn, by her father and next friend, Patrick Conway, v. Gustav Rumpf.

Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before Gorman, J.

At the trial it appeared that defendant was owner of premises which he had leased for a skating rink. The tenant being in default judgment was entered in ejectment under a clause of the lease, and the premises were delivered by the sheriff to an attorney acting on behalf of the owner. After this delivery was made, the plaintiffs went upon the premises, defied the direction of the defendant's agent to leave, and took possession of the box office of the skating rink. They were given time to leave, but refusing to do so, the attorney personally swore out a warrant for their arrest. They were bound over for trial. When their case was called for trial they stated to the court that they were not then interfering with possession, and they were discharged.

The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.

Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.

Herbert W. Salus, with him Simon Garlic and Samuel W. Salus, for appellants.

Paul C Hamlin, with him Wm. Jay Turner, for appellee.

Before Orlady, P. J., Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam

Three cases were tried before one jury by an agreement of counsel a nonsuit was entered which the court subsequently refused to lift. Separate appeals were taken, and argued together in this court. The actions were trespass, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. There is nothing in this record to connect the defendant with the institution of the proceedings before the magistrate, through which the three plaintiffs were arrested. The converse is clearly shown, that he did not direct or know anything in regard to it until this suit was begun. No authority of the agent to have the plaintiffs arrested was shown, nor can any be inferred from the admitted facts. Undoubtedly a principal may be held liable for the act of his agent in instituting a malicious prosecution. But ...