Taylor v. Hanlon
| Decision Date | 04 June 1883 |
| Citation | 103 Pa. 504 |
| Parties | Taylor <I>versus</I> Hanlon. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. CLARK, J., absent
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of McKean county: Of July Term 1882, No. 228.
Thomas A. Morrison (with him N. B. Smiley), for plaintiff in error.—In appeals from justices, the form of action may be amended in the common pleas, but the cause of action must remain the same: Lyon v. Chalker, 2 Watts. 14; Gue v. Kline, 1 Harris 60; Comfort v. Leland, 3 Whart 81. The Act of May 10th 1871, P. L. 265, Purd. Dig. 70, only applies to the form of action. Trover will not lie until refusal to deliver after demand: Waring v. Penn. R. R., 26 P. F. Smith 491. As the defendant offered no evidence, the court should have instructed the jury that the evidence either did or did not make out a case of trover and conversion. It is error to leave both law and fact to the jury: Cook v. Mackrell, 20 P. F. Smith 12.
P. R. Cotter, for defendant in error.—Forms of action are not prescribed in the law giving jurisdiction to justices of the peace, and it would be unwise to adhere to them: Bright v. Gitz, 31 P. F. Smith 144; Act of March 20th 1810, § 4, Purd. Dig. Tit. Justices of the Peace, pl. 92. The cause of action remaining the same, the court has power to allow such change in the form as tend to advance the cause of justice: Trego v. Lewis, 8 P. F. Smith 463. It was shown by the testimony that the plaintiff below demanded the horse, but the defendant refused to return it, giving as a reason that it was unfit for use. This was proper evidence of conversion to submit to the jury: 2 Hilliard on Torts 102, § 4.
We are unable to say whether the court below erred in permitting the plaintiff below to change the form of action from trespass to trover. If it was a change of the form of action only, the amendment was allowable under the Act of 10th May 1871 P. L. 265. There is nothing upon the record to show what the cause of action was before the justice. The transcript is not given and no narr. was filed, the case having been tried under the rule which substitutes the transcript of the justice for a declaration.
Picking up our knowledge of the case as best we can, from the paper book, we learn that it was tried in the common pleas as an action of trover and conversion. The plaintiff claimed that he placed his horse with the defendant to be cured of "ringbones and spavins," and to be returned within four days....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pollock's Estate
... ... There ... has been no demand by appellants for the return of the stock ... dividend, and no unqualified refusal by appellee: Taylor ... v. Hanlon, 103 Pa. 504; Allison v. Montgomery, ... 107 Pa. 455; Spear v. Alexander, 2 Phila. 89; ... Prentiss v. Hannay, 4 Whart. 508; ... ...
- Lehigh, Etc., Co. v. Street Ry.
-
Cole v. High
...not necessary for us, as the defendant seems erroneously to think, to show a fraudulent conversion: 2 Tr. & Haly's Pr. sec. 1564; Taylor v. Hanlon, 103 Pa. 504; Griswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. The principle that the parties could settle their disputes and fix their rights by an agreement of com......
-
Geiger v. Madden
...jury: Com. v. Rhoads, 23 Pa.Super. 512; Com. v. Loughhead, 218 Pa. 429. The amendment was proper: Smith v. Bellows, 77 Pa. 441; Taylor v. Hanlon, 103 Pa. 504. Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ. OPINION RICE, J. In the statement of claim it was alleged that, while......