Sperry v. Seidel
| Decision Date | 22 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 93 |
| Citation | 66 A. 853,218 Pa. 16 |
| Parties | Sperry v. Seidel, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 4, 1907.
Reargued April 1, 1907.
Appeal, No. 93, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Berks Co., Nov. T., 1903, No. 47, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William H. Sperry v. Henry J. Seidel. Affirmed.
Trespass for wrongful eviction. Before ENDLICH, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Verdict for plaintiff for $3,947.83, upon which judgment was entered for $3,000, all above that amount having been remitted.
Errors assigned among others were (1) in refusing binding instructions for defendant and using the words "abuse of legal process" in the charge.
Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed.
lsaac Hiester, with him Dumn & Schaeffer and D. E. Schroeder, for appellant. -- In a landlord and tenant proceeding an averment that the tenant's term had fully ended gives the magistrates jurisdiction to inquire of the truth of the averment, and if they err in their judgment the proceedings are not void for want of jurisdiction, nor the landlord liable as a trespasser: Galbraith v. Black, 4 S. & R. 207; Ayres v. Novinger, 8 Pa. 412; Federal Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 82 Pa. 357; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Heath, 95 Pa. 333; Duncan v. Kirkpatrick, 13 S. & R. 292; Breading v. Blocher, 29 Pa. 347; Kissock v. Grant, 34 Barb. 144; Field v. Anderson, 103 Ill. 403; West v. Smallwood, 3 M. & W. 418; Carratt v. Morley, 1 A & E. (N.S.) 18; Tarbox v. Hays, 6 Watts, 398; McDonald v. Simcox, 98 Pa. 619; Hauer's App., 5 W. & S. 473; Sloan v. McKinstry, 18 Pa. 120; Billings v. Russell, 23 Pa. 189; Sweeney v Girolo, 154 Pa. 609; Crescent City Live-Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Slaughter House Co., 120 U.S. 141 (7 S.Ct. Repr. 472); Hart v. Cooper, 129 Pa. 297.
If process is void and an action of trespass quare clausum fregit is brought against the person who caused it to issue, there can be no addition of punitive damages for abuse of legal process: Sommer v. Wilt, 4 S. & R. 19; Maher v. Ashmead, 30 Pa. 344; Baird v. Householder, 32 Pa. 168; Lane v. Sayre Land Co., 211 Pa. 290; Graver v. Fehr, 89 Pa. 460; Wenger v. Phillips, 195 Pa. 214.
E. H. Deysher and C. H. Ruhl, for appellee. -- The action was properly brought: Day v. Sharp, 4 Whart. 339; Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. 545; Graver v. Fehr, 18 W.N.C. 311.
In an action of trespass exemplary damages may be recovered to punish the wrongdoer for the moral wrong, the recklessness with which the act has been committed, or the violence and outrage attending it: McBride v. McLaughlin, 5 Watts, 375; Huling v. Henderson, 161 Pa. 553; Greeney v. Penna. Water Co., 29 Pa.Super. 136.
In a landlord and tenant proceeding under the provisions of the act of 1772, if the complaint of the landlord fails to aver essential jurisdictional facts, the proceedings are coram non judice and absolutely void; and an eviction of the tenant thereunder is illegal and is a trespass against him, for which the landlord is liable in an action of trespass: Fahnestock v. Faustenauer, 5 S. & R. 174; Camp v. Wood, 10 Watts, 118; Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. 545; Pearsoll v. Chapin, 44 Pa. 9; Seylar v. Carson, 69 Pa. 81; Smith v. Wildman, 178 Pa. 245; Baird v. Householder, 32 Pa. 168; Maher v. Ashmead, 30 Pa. 344; Grohmann v. Kirschman, 168 Pa. 189; Thatcher v. Powell, 19 U.S. 119.
This identical question was ruled in 1877 in the court of common pleas, No. 2, Philadelphia county: De Coursey v. The Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. et al., 3 W.N.C. 518.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
It must be conceded that the question raised by this appeal is a close one and not free from difficulty. There can be no doubt, however, that if the complaint filed in a proceeding to dispossess a tenant under the landlord and tenant Act of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm. L. 370, fails to aver the essential jurisdictional facts required by the statute, the proceedings are coram non judice and without legal effect. An eviction of the tenant in such a case is illegal and the landlord may be held liable for damages in an action of trespass. Indeed, as we understand the contention of the learned counsel for appellant, this view of the law is not seriously questioned. It is argued, however, with much force that the original complaint in the proceedings to dispossess the tenant did contain a sufficient averment of facts to confer jurisdiction, and that the landlord cannot be held liable in damages for a wrongful eviction which resulted from errors that may have been committed by the inquisition in its findings of fact relating to the date when the term of the lease ended. The difficulty with this position is that it is not supported by the record. In the original proceedings for recovery of possession of the demised premises the learned court below on certiorari held that the complaint on which it was founded, as well as the inquisition which acted on it, failed to show jurisdiction to entertain it. On appeal to the Superior Court the judgment of the court below was affirmed: Seidel v. Sperry, 26 Pa.Super. 649. In the per curiam opinion of the learned Superior Court it is suggested as a reason for affirming the judgment of the court below that the inquisition was defective on the ground of uncertainty, and it is now strongly urged that the question of jurisdiction was not decided in that case, and that the judgment entered therein cannot be set up by appellee here to sustain his contention that the proceeding under which he was evicted was without warrant of law, and, therefore, utterly void. As we read the opinion of the court below on the certiorari proceedings and of the Superior Court in reviewing them, there is no escape from the conclusion that the question of jurisdiction was the vital one involved and decided in that case. The Superior Court approved the reasoning of the "exhaustive and satisfactory" opinion of the learned court below and rested its decision largely upon that opinion. The court below in that case based its ruling on the ground that the necessary jurisdictional facts did not appear to sustain the proceedings, and when that judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court and no appeal taken, the question of want of jurisdiction was finally determined and is not now before us.
On the other questions raised by the assignments we do not agree that any reversible error was...
To continue reading
Request your trial